Part  of  tho 
t       ADQISON  ALIiXANDEU  LIBI^ABY 
vhich  was  presented  by 

MeSSKS.  R.   L.   and   a.  ST0ABT. 

X^^3        


fV<.sv>,     Division 

Sh('f/\    Section..... 


^ 


3-^ 

■t 

(!) 


^-♦e? 


BV    665     .S49    1852 
Shimsall,    R.    C. 
End   of   prelacy 


n 


*.=s*--*r-' 


(J 


y 


/ 


v< 


/ 


/  f 


^ 


J' 


■k_ 


EECOMMENDATIONS. 

.,m  the  Rev.  W.  W.  Phillips,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Church,  Fifth  Avenue. 
The  work  of  Mr.  Shimeall  on  Episcopacy,  has  been  prepared  with  much  labor,  and 
evinces  both  learning  and  research.  It  is  designed  to  counteract  in  the  present  day,  the 
strong  tendency  in  the  human  mind  to  substitute  for  Christ — as  grounds  of  hope  and 
confidence  towards  God — the  enjoyment  of  ecclesiastical  relations  and  church  privileges, 
and  the  observance  of  religious  forms  and  ceremonies,  and  at  the  same  time  to  give  the 
fundamental  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  its  appropriate  and  prominent  place  in  our 
Christian  system.  Notwithstanding  the  prejudice  which  exists  in  the  minds  of  some 
against  everything  in  the  form  of  religious  controversy,  and  against  all  persons  who  en- 
gage in  it,  we  trust  that  those  who  feel  interested  in  this  important  subject,  will  not  ob- 
iect  to  a  full,  fair,  and  candid  discussion  of  it.  The  command  to  contend  earnestly  for 
the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints  is  still  binding.  If  the  statements  of  Mr.  S.  are 
correct  and  agreeable  to  truth,  they  should  be  received  as  such;  if  they  are  not,  let  them 
be  refuted  and  proved  to  be  false.  I  regard  them  as  worthy  of  the  impartial  perusal  and 
prayerful  consideration  of  all  who  receive  the  word"  of  God  as  the  only  rule  of  religious 
faith  and  practice.  W.  W.  PHILLIPS. 


From  the  Rev.  G.  Spring,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the  Brick  Presbyterian  Church. 
I  HAVE  not  been  able  to  give  that  attention  to  the  work  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Shimeall, 
which  justifies  me  in  expressing  that  approbation  of  the  entire  argument,  which  I  cheer- 
fully express  in  relation  to  the  portions  which  I  have  carefully  perused.  The  author  ha^ 
spared  no  pains  to  render  his  volume  a  standard  work  on  the  Episcopal  Controvers)'. 
The  whole  work  is  elaborate,  and  parts  of  it  present  the  subject  in  a  light  somewhat 
novel,  and  certainly  seasonable.     It  is  well  worthy  of  publication  and  patronage. 

GARDINER  SPRING. 
Brick  Church  Chapel,  June  2,  1851. 


From  the  Rev.  N.  I.  Marselus,  D.I>.,  Pastor  of  the  Reformed  Dutch  Church,  in  Bleecker  Street 
"A  Treatise  on  Episcopacy,  &c.  By  the  Rev.  R.  C.  Shimeall."  Such  is  the 
title  of  a  book,  about  to  be  published,  the  manuscript  of  which  has  been  put  into  my 
hands,  by  the  author.  And,  after  a  careful  and  minute  examination  of  the  same,  I  have 
no  hesitancy  in  adding  my  testimony  to  its  value,  in  connection  with  the  favorable  ex- 
pressions given  above.  It  must  be  apparent  to  all,  who  have,  for  a  few  years  paat, 
watched  the  movements  of  the  Roman  hierarchy,  and  the  evident  tendency  to  apostatize  in 
the  same  direction,  by  a  large  ecclesiastical  denomination,  both  in  America  and  England, 
that  a  work  of  this  description  is  loudly  called  for,  at  the  present  day.  Mr.  Shimeall  baa 
done  full  justice  to  the  subject  he  has  undertaken  to  discuss.  The  analytic  form  in 
which  the  whole  work  is  moulded,  the  deep  research  in  Church  History  which  charac- 
terizes it,  and  the  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  whole  controversy  on  Prelacy,  which 
appears  throughout  the  entire  discussion,  cannot  fail  to  interest  every  reader,  and  carry 
conviction  to  the  minds  of  the  doubtful  and  wavering.  The  arguments  employed  are 
clear  and  conclusive ;  the  illustrations,  apt  and  definite  ;  and  the  inferences,  natural  and 
decisive.  And  the  work  itself,  in  the  estimation  of  the  undersigned,  might  be  ver/ 
usefully  and  profitably  adopted,  as  a  text  book,  in  all  our  Anti-Prelatical  Theological  Semi- 
naries.   I  hope  its  circulation  may  be  commensurate  with  its  merits. 

N.  I.  MARSELUS. 
New  York,  July  9,  1851. 


From  the  Rev.  Joh;»  N.  M'Lkod.  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the  First  Reformed  Pre';';ytenan  Church,  Now  Tork, 
and  Professor  of  Theology  in  the  Seminary  oJT  the  Reformed  Presbyterian  Church. 

I  HAVE  read  such  portions  of  the  manuscript  of  Rev.  Mr.  Shimeall  as  the  time  it 

remained  in  my  hands  has  allowed,  and  trust  he  will  be  encouraged  to  give  it  to  the 

public.     I  find  several  things  in  his  incidental  expositions  of  Scripture,  and  in  his  view» 

of  particular  points  of  interest,  to  which  I  may  not  be  prepared  to  subscribe  j  and  yet 

A  1 


RECOMM  ENDATIONS. 

taking  the  work  as  a  whole,  I  regard  it  as  a  learned,  faithful  and  convincing  argument 
for  important  truth,  and  in  opposition  1o  insidious  and  dangerous  error. 

As  a  demonstration  of  the  unscrii)tinal  character  of  Prelacy  in  all  its  forms,  it  is  in 
my  opinion,  as  seasonahie.  as  it  is  satisfactory.  Should  it  be  given  to  the  world  through 
the  press,  it  may  serve,  with  the  hles.^ing  of  (iod,  as  a  timoous  warning  to  some  who 
are  in  danger  of  being  attracted  Irom  the  plainer  and  purer  Christianity,  to  the  forms, 
ceremonies,  and  mysteries  that  distinguish  one  of  its  main  corruptions.  He  who  leaves 
religious  connections  where  evangelical  truth  and  order,  and  a  spiritual  worship  prevail, 
and  puts  him,=elf  under  the  guidance  of  prelatical  teachers,  is  on  the  track  to  Rome.  So 
the  work  of  Mr.  S.  assures  us,  and  he  hlows  the  trumpet  of  warning  with  an  honest 
boldness,  and  with  no  uncertain  sound. 

JOHN  N.  M'LEOD. 

New  York,  June  26,  1851. 


FVom  the  Rev.  George  B.  Cueever,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  tlie  Church  of  the  Puritans,  Union  Square,  New 

York. 

I  HAVE  examined  the  manuscript  work  of  Rev.  Mr.  Siiimeall  concerning  the  preten- 
sions of  Episcopacy,  and  have  admired  the  thoroughness  and  research  of  the  discussion. 
I  wish  very  muchthatit  may  be  printed.  It  clearly  exposes  the  arrogant  assumptions,  and 
errors  long  defended,  of  the  prelatical  system,  as  also  the  bigotry  and  unrighteousness  of 
spirit  involved  in  them,  and  manifested  in  their  support ;  and  at  the  same  time  it  develops 
great  principles,  and  sets  forth  important  truth.     1  hope  it  will  be  given  to  the  public. 

GEORGE  B.  CHEEVER. 

New  York,  May  14,  1851. 


From  the  Rev.  John  M.  Kkebs,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the  Rutgers  Street  Presbyterian  Church. 

I  HAVE  read  the  entire  manuscript  of  Mr.  Shimeall's  work,  entitled  the  "Romanism 
of  Low  Churchism."  It  exhibits  great  labor  and  research ;  and  the  Table  of  Contents 
and  the  Indexes  of  Texts  and  Subjects,  will  show  with  what  minuteness  the  whole 
question  of  Prelacy  has  been  examined.  The  clear  method,  the  fullness  of  investiga- 
tion, the  array  of  authorities,  the  application  of  facts  and  the  force  of  the  argument, 
render  this  work  a  Thesaurus.  To  my  mind  it  is  a  complete  exposure  of  the  prelatical 
doctrine  of  Apostolical  Succession,  and  of  the  worthlessness  of  its  claim  even  on  its  own 
principles.  But  the  most  important  feature  of  this  work,  and  its  value  to  the  anti-pre- 
latical  churches,  is  found  in  the  exposition  of  the  practical  tendencies  of  the  prelatical 
system,  and  in  the  tracing  of  the  whole  to  the  fons  et  origo  malorum,  in  the  more  modest 
and  plausible  positions  of  "Evangelical  Low-Churchism."  The  historical  rise  of  Epis- 
copacy in  the  expediency  of  the  system,  viewed  in  connection  with  thedaims  of  the  evangel- 
ical party,  at  the  present  time,  present  matter  for  serious  reflection  to  those  who  are  dis- 
posed to  look  with  favor  on  Low-Churchism,  or  what  is  usually  calleil  surli.  I  hope  the 
work  will  be  published.  JOHN  M.  KREBS. 

January  27,  1851. 


From  the  Rev.  I.  S.  Spencer,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the  Second  Presbyterian  Church,  Brooklyn,  L.  I. 

I  HAVE  examined,  with  some  carefulness,  the  manuscript  copy  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Shime- 
ALu's  "Treatise  on  Episcopacy."  The  Treatise  manifests  much  research,  a  respectable 
scholarship,  and  an  independent  mind.  Not  having  leisure  to  peruse  the  whole  of  it,  I 
am  unprepared  to  express  an  opinion  on  all  the  particular  points  of  which  it  treats; 
but  so  far  as  I  have  read  it,  I  believe  its  doctrines  and  its  argumentations  to  be  just. 
The  subject  itself  is  of  much  moment,  and  I  think  the  publication  timely. 

ICHABOD  S.  SPENCER. 

Brooklyn,  May  20,  1851. 


From  the  Rev.  S.  H.  Cox,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the  First  Presbyterian  Churcli,  Brooklyn,  L.  I. 
The  MSS.  of  the  forthcoming  work  of  the  Rev.  R.  C.  Shimeall,  I  have  seen,  and 
read,  though  without  time  for  a  full  perusal,  several  of  them,  with  a  view  of  the  scope 
and  intendment  of  the  entire  treatise  ;  and,  as  such,  I  think  it  evinces  great  research  and 
assiduity,  with  some  experimental  means  for  seventeen  years  of  knowing  the  system, 
which  few  of  the  unfettered  and  Protestant  Ministers  of  Christ,  could  possess.  The 
theme  is  important  in  a  high  degree,  since  the  unchurching  and  exclusive  assumptions  of 
prelacy,  are  only  one  of  the  veritable  schisms  organic  that  are  also  signs  of  antichrist. 

2 


RECOMMENDATIONS. 

Much  as  I  respect,  on  other  accounts  alone,  some,  or,  even  many  of  this  affinity,  on  this 
and  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  and  much  as  I  regret  to  differ  from  them,  in  appear- 
ance or  reality,  as  scholars  and  as  gentlemen,  as  neighbors  and  cis  friends,  I  intend  to  go 
to  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  testifying  against  the  sectarian  enormities,  too  long  con- 
cealed, and  too  much  passively  endured,  that  belong  to  their  sectarian  pile,  "  from  turret 
to  foundation-stone  ;"  since  the  individual  who  lovetfi  or  maketk  a  lie  in  the  Church  of 
God,  is  not  the  one  whom  I  desire  to  imitate  at  ail.     See  Rev.  21  :  27,  22  :  15. 

SAMUEL  H.  COX. 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  May  5,  1851. 


From  tlie  Rev.  Geo.  Peck,  D.D.,  Editor  oii'he  Jldvocate  andjounial  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

I  HAVE  examined,  with  as  much  care  as  my  regular  official  duties  would  allow,  a 
MS.  work  on  '•  Ministerial  Parity,"  "  Prelacy,"  and  kindred  topics,  by  the  Rev.  R.  C. 
SuiME.\LL,  and  am  happy  to  say  that  I  consider  it  a  work  of  high  merit.  The  author 
thoroughly  understands  his  theme,  and  has  presented  the  results  of  his  investigations  in 
a  form  which,  if  published,  will  greatly  serve  the  interests  of  truth,  and  consequently 
do  much  good.  I  have  not  been  able  to  read  the  whole  work  consecutively,  and  conse- 
quently, cannot  say  that  there  are  no  particular  views  in  it  which  I  should  not  approve, 
but  of  the  spirit  of  the  work  and  the  ability  with  which  it  is  executed,  I  have  sufficient- 
ly acquainted  myself  to  form  an  intelligent  opinion.  I  most  heartily  wish  the  author 
success  in  his  enterprise.  GEO.  PECK. 

New  York,  200  Mulbery  Street,  August  7,  1851. 


From  the  Rev.  John  Dowlins,  D.D.,  Pastor  of  the  Broadway  Baptist  Church,  and  author  of  the  His- 
tory of  Romanism,  &.C. 

I  HAVE  examined,  with  as  much  care  as  other  engagements  would  permit,  the  MS.  of 
the  forthcoming  work  of  the  Rev.  R.  C.  Siiimeall  on  the  "  Prelatico-Episcopal  Contro- 
versy." The  result  of  such  examination  has  been,  in  my  own  mind,  that  Mr.  Shimeali's 
work  will  prove  to  be  a  learned,  reliable,  and  complete  Treatise  upon  this  subject.  The 
author  is  a  Paedobaptist,  and  as  might  be  expected,  an  expression  occasionally  escapes 
from  his  pen,  at  which  a  member  of  my  own  denomination  would  demur.  This  fact, 
however,  does  not,  in  my  judgment,  invalidate  the  claims  of  his  work  to  be  regarded, 
as  I  doubt  not  it  will  be  regarded,  as  a  standard  work  by  all  who  with  myself,  occupy 
the  ground  '"  of  the  Bible  in  opposition  to  Tradition  as  the  only  rule  of  Faith,"  and  of 
"  Ministerial  Parity,  in  opposition  to  the  arrogant  and  exclusive  claims  of  Episcopacy." 
The  author  most  skillfully  dissects  the  different  '"  chains"  of  unbroken  apostolical  suc- 
cession, that  have  been  constructed— /orgcrf,  I  was  about  to  say — by  the  Rev.  A.  B.  Cha- 
pin,  and  other  prelatical  apostolical  successionists,  scatters  to  the  winds  their  baseless  as- 
sumptions, and  shows  to  a  demonstration,  that  their  exclusive  theories  are  hampered 
with  difficulties,  inconsistencies,  and  contradictions,  absolutely  insurmountable,  and  fatal 
to  their  whole  system.  I  shall  be  most  happy  to  learn  that  the  work  of  Mr.  Shimeall 
obtains  that  extensive  circulation  to  which  its  merits  entitle  it. 

JOHN  BOWLING. 


From  the  Rev.  James  M.  Macdonald,  M.A.,  Pastorofthe  Fifteenth  Street  Presbyterian  Church,  New 

Yorlv. 

New  York,  May  12,  1851. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : — I  have  read  considerable  portions  of  your  work  (in  manuscript) 
on  Episcopacy,  and  have  been  much  impressed  with  its  signal  ability.  I  earnestly  hope 
that  it  will  be  given  to  the  public,  through  the  press,  with  as  little  delay  as  possible. 

That  portion  of  it  which  relates  to  the  question  of  apostolical  succession,  appears  to 
me  1o  be  unanswerable.  At  all  events,  I  should  like  to  see  some  advocate  of  such  a 
succession  attempt  an  answer.  You  have  met  Episcopalians  on  their  own  chosen 
ground,  and  shown  it  to  be  untenable.  Yours,  respectfully, 

JAMES  M.  MACDONALD. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Shimeall. 

3 


~^' 


END  OF  PRELACY: 


INCLUDING    A    DEMONSTRATION    OF    THE 


ROMANISM 


OF  THE   SYSTEM,   SO   CALLED,   OF 


EVANGELICAL  LOW-CHURCHISM. 


END  OF  PRELACY: 

OR,  A  TREATISE  ON 


MINISTERIAL  PARITY  AND  THE  NON-EPPICACY  OP  SACRAMENTAL  GRACE; 


THE  ROMANISM 

OF  THE  PRELATICAL  DOGMA  OF  AN  UNBROKEN  SUCCESSION, 

AND  ITS  COGNATE,  SACRAMENTARIANISM,  4 

PAPAL,  TRACTARIAN  AND  HIGH  AND  LO¥-CHURCH, 


IN  THREE  PAETS: 

PART  I.— ON  THE  RULE  OF  FAITH. 

PART  II.— ON  MINISTERIAL  PARITY,  TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE. 

PART  III.— ON  MINISTERIAL  PARITY,  versus  PRELACY. 


"  Be  ye  not  called  Rabbi — call  no  man  your  Father — all  ye  are  brethren." — Jesus  Cheist. 
"  A  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump.  Purge  out  therefore  the  old  leaven.'' — Paul. 
"The  Battle  of  the  Reformation  is  again  to  be  fought." — Rev.  Wm.  Meade,  Bishop  of  Virginia. 


BY  EEV.  E.  C.  SHIMEALL, 

FOE    SEVt!<TEEN    TEARS   A  PRESBYTER    OF    THE     PROTESTANT     EPISCOPAL    CHUPCH  ; 

NOW  A  MEMBER  OF  THE   PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK  ; 

AND  AUTHOR  OF  THE  ILLUMINATED  CHART  OF  SACRED  HISTORY,  CHRONOLOGY,  GEOGRAPHY,  AND  GENEALOGY; 
A  COMPLETE  ECCLESIASTICAL  CHART,  FROM  THE  EARLIEST  RECORDS  ;  SACRED  CHRONOLOGY,  HISTORIC 
AHD    PROPHETIC  ;    SACRED    HISTORY    IW   QUESTIONS   AND    ANSWERS  ;    A   TREATISE    ON    PRAYCH,    ETC.,    ETC 


NEW   YOEK: 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER,  145  NASSAU  STREET. 
1852. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1852,  by 

REV.  U.  C.  SHIMEALL, 

In  th»  Clerk's  Office  of  tlie  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Southern  District  of  New 

York. 


8.  W.  BENKDICT, 

BTK.nEOTTPEK     *ND     TuiNTER, 

16  Sprua  slrtH.  N.  Y. 


DEDICATION. 

TO    THE 

PKESBYTER-BISHOPS,  RUXING-ELDERS,    AND    DEACONS, 

OF    ALL   THE    REFORMED    PROTESTANT    ANTI-PRELATICAL    CHURCHES 

OF    CHRIST    "  SCATTERED    ABROAD," 

TOGETHER  WITH  "THE  WHOLE  MULTITUDE"  OR  "CHURCH:" 

TO    THE 

ANGLICAN    HIERARCHY    OP 

ARCHBISHOPS,   BISHOPS,    CANONS,    PREBENDS,    DEANS,    ARCHDEACONS, 

DEACONS,    ETC.  ; 

THE    ANGLO-AMERICAN    HIERARCHY, 

THE    RIGHT    REV.    THE    BISHOPS,    THE    REV.    THE    CLERGY,    AND 

THE  LAITY  OF  "THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH;" 

AND 

TO    HIS    HOLINESS,    PIUS    IX.    OF    ROME, 
TO  HIS  CLERGY  OF  CARDINALS,  ARCH-BISHOPS,  BISHOPS,  ETC., 

AND   TO   HIS   FLOCK,   CALLED   "THE   FAITHFUL:" 

THE    FOLLOWING   TREATISE 
IS    MOST    RESPECTFULLY   DEDICATED, 

BY   THEIR    HUMBLE    SERVANT, 

THE  AUTHOR. 

New  York,  Feb.,  1853. 


Extracted  from  the  Protestant  Churckman,  Oct.  18,  1851. 

BEWARE  OF  FALSE  DOCTRINE. 

Unsound  faitli  will  never  be  tlie  motlier  of  really  sound  practice ;  and  in 
these  latter  days,  departxires  from  the  faith  abound.  See,  then,  that  your 
loins  be  girt  about  with  truth,  and  be  very  jealous  of  receiving  any  thing 
which  cannot  be  proved  by  the  Bible.  Think  not  that  folse  doctrine  will 
meet  you  face  to  face,  saying,  "  I  am  false  doctrine,  and  I  want  to  come  into 
your  heart."  Satan  does  not  go  to  work  in  that  way.  He  dresses  up  false 
doctrme  like  Jezebel — he  paints  her  face  and  tires  her  head,  and  tries  to 
make  her  like  truth.  Think  not  that  those  who  preach  error  will  never 
preach  any  thing  that  is  true.  Error  would  do  little  harm  if  that  was  the 
case.  No  !  error  will  come  before  you  mingled  with  much  that  is  sound 
and  scriptural.  The  sermon  will  he  all  right  excepting  a  feiv  sentences.  The 
book  mil  be  all  good  excei^t  a  few  'pages.  And  this  is  the  chief  danger  of 
religious  error  in  those  times, — it  is  like  the  subtle  poisons  of  days  gone  by, 
— ^it  works  so  deceitfully  that  it  throws  men  off  their  guard.  Brethren,  take 
care.  Remember  that  even  Satan  himself  is  transfonncd  into  an  angel  of 
light. — Living  or  Dead,  by  Rev. Kyle. 


CONTENTS. 


Page 

Dedication,  .  .  .  .  .       vii 

To  THE  Reader,       ......   xxvii 


INTRODUCTION.— pp.  15-52. 

Evangelical  Protestantism. — Romanism. — A  new  contest  inevitable. — A  difference. — 
Low  Churchism  compared  with  the  so-called  Low  Church  Theory,  as  doctrinally 
and  practically  developed,  etc. 


PART  I. 

OlSr    THE   EULE    OF    FAITH. 

THE  SCRIPTURES  ALONE,  VerSUS  SCRIPTURE  AND  TRADITION. 

pp.  53-88. 

An  authoritative  standard  indispensable. — The  Bible  alone,  such. — Involves  the  neces- ' 
sity  of  private  interpretation. — This  Theory  the  Palladium  of  Protestantism. — 
Tradilionists. — "  Holy  Scripture  and  Ancient  Authors."— Tradition. — Conflicting 
Schemes  of. — If  authoritative,  it  must  be  co-ordinate  with  Scripture. — Otherwise 
we  have  a  divided  authority. — The  question  at  issue  purely  one  of  authority. — 
Protestant  view. — The  Scriptures  infallible. — Interpreters  not. — Prelatical  view. — 
Involves  the  theory  of  Infallibility  of  the  Interpreter  of — Proof,  drawn  from  the 
application  of  their  theory  to  the  question,  Do  the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Te-sta- 
ment  clearly  reveal  a  complete  scheme  of  Church  order,  etc. — Protestants  affirm. — 
Prelatists  deny. — ^Their  Theory  stated.— Fallacy  of — Argued,  either  Scripture 
alone  is  supreme,  or,  on  the  Prelatical  Scheme,  Tradition  must  be  equal  with  and 
independent  of  it.— Put  to  the  test  of  Inspiration  and  Miracles.— The  Primitive. — 
The  alleged  Medieval  and  Modern. — Examination  of  the  last  two,  as  a  question  of 
historic  fact.  PP-  r)4-64 

Tradition. — Two  kinds  of.  Apostolical  and  Ecclesiastical,  or  Catholic. — 1st:  Jpnstolical 
Tradition. — Definition  of. — Texts  examined. —  (1.)  No  evidence  in  Scripture,  of  an 
Apostolical  Creed. —  (2.)  Nor  in  the  writings  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers. — 2d: 
EfrhsiaHicul,  or  Catholic  Tradition — Definition  of — Romish  claims. — Do.  Tracta- 
lians.— Do.,  "  Book  of  Common  Prayer."— Proof,  that  they  are  substantially  identi- 
cal.— ^Test  of  genuine  and  spurious  Tradition  :  "  Quod  iihiqne,  quod  semper,  quod  ab 
omnibus  creditum  est ?'' — Etpiully  advocated  by  all  classes  of  Traditiouists,  Roman- 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

ists,  Tradariaiis,  and  High  and  Low  Churchmen. — Fallacy  of,  proved  from  the  fol- 
lowing arguments  : — 1.  Asa  test,  this  rule  is  inapplicable — 2.  Unsatisfactory — '.i. 
Superlluous — 1.  It  is  Judaic  in  in  its  character  and  tendency — S.  The  Early  Fath- 
ers disclaim  that  authority  in  bt^half  of  their  Writings,  which  Traditionists  alhrm. 
— Concluding  remarks.  pp.  G5-75 

Additional  Arguments  in  sujjport  of  the  right  of  private  interpretation,  against  the 
claims  of  infallibility  involved  in  the  theory  of  Tradition. — 1st:  God  has  given  us  a 
law  or  standard,  an  internal  principle,  conscience,  as  our  guide,  etc. — 2d :  Common 
consent. — Piactically  admitted  by  Romanists. — Illustration  of  the  sophistry  of 
"  the  Vicious  Circle,"  the  Pope  is  infallible,  for  the  Bible  asserts  it,  and  the  Bible  is 
inspired,  for  the  Pope  asserts  it. — Examination  of  the  question,  Which  was  prior, 
the  Bible,  or  the  Church?  Bishop  Purcell  of  Cincinnati. —  (1.)  Proof,  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  is  totally  destitute  of  an  authentic  copy  of  the  Bible. —  (2.)  Proof, 
that  she  is  equally  destitute  of  an  authorized  commentary  of  the  Bible. —  (3.)  Falla- 
cy of  the  gjleged  dependence  of  Protestants  on  Romanists  for  the  collection  and 
preservation  of  the  canonical  Scriptures. —  (4.)  Examination  of  the  Tridentine  can- 
on, that  Scripture  must  be  interpreted  according  to  "  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Fathers. — Conclusion. — Consequences  of  the  theory  of  Traditionists. — The  Bible, 
its  own  interpreter,  its  own  witness,  its  own  juds^e.  pp.  75-88 


PART  11. 

.AUNISTERIAL  PARITY,  TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE. 

CHAPTEE  1. 

8CKIPTUUAL  VIEW  OF   THE   ORIGIN,    NATURE,    ORDT2RS,  AND    POWERS    OF 
THE   CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY. 

SECTION  I. — pp.  89-95. 

Introductory  Remarks. — Plan  of  the  Argument  inductive. — A  visible  ministry  a  concomi- 
tant of  the  visible  Church  state,  Patriarchal,  Jewish,  and  Christian. — Opening  His- 
tory of  the  New  Testament  exhibits  its  last  transition  state. — Its  distinguishing 
characteristic.  Justification  by  Faith,  through  grace,  in  opposition  to  the  law  of 
Works. — Process  of  ingathering. — The  Church  invisible  and  visible. — Thelaiter,  the 
basis  of  its  external  unity. — A  baptized  body. — Subjects,  infants  and  adults. — The 
Lord's  Supper  the  bond  of  visible  union  and  communion. 


SECTION    11.^ — ^pp.     95-97. 

The  Christian  Ministry. — Differs  from  the  Jewish  in  its  form,  its  spirit,  and  its  end. — 
Diverted  from  its  original  divinely-appointed  intent. — Paul's  description  of; — Scrip- 
tural account  of  the  Origin,  Nature,  Orders,  and  Powers  or  Functions  of.  as  insti- 
tuted by  Christ  and  his  Apostles. — Chillingwortli.  the  Homilies,  and  Bishop  Taylor 
quoted. 


CONTENTS.  IX 

SECTION  ni. — pp.  98-102. 

The  Origin  of  the  New  Testament  ministry. — Instances  of  ministerial  appointments — 
1st :  By  Christ  personally — 2(1 :  By  the  Holy  Ghost — 3d  :  By  the  Apostles — 4th  : 
By  the  Apostles  with  others — 5th  :  By  others  than  the  Apostles — 6th  :  Of  those 
respecting  whose  appointments  no  allusion  is  made,  either  as  to  the  source  or  mode 
of — 7th  :  Those  appointed  by  special  Providence — Total  number,  sixty. 


SECTION  IV. — pp.  102-105. 

The  nature  of  their  powers  or  "gifts." — This  inferred,  1st:  From  their  moral  qualities  of 
heart  and  of  life. — 2d  :  Must  have  a  Divine  call. — 3d  :  Intellectual  qualifications. — 4th: 
Must  be  of  sound  doctrine. — -5th  :  Excluded  self-adulation,  jealousy,  and  a  love  of  "  the 
pre-eminence." — 6th  :  The  duty  enjoined,  to  forsake  such  as  are  unholy  in  life,  or 
who  "  handle  the  word  of  God  deceitfully." 


SECTION  V. — pp.  105-114. 

Ministerial  Orders.  How  many  were  there  ? — Process  of  reduction  and  classification. — 1  st 
By  their  titles. — Of  the  above  sixty,  forty  bore  no  titles  ecclesiastical — those  with 
titles  (twenty  in  all) ,  the  number  reduced  to  eight. — These  compared  with  Eph. 
4  :  11. — The  present  divinely-appointed  ministry  must  correspond  with  those  of 
the  above  which  were  designed  to  constitute  the  ordinary  and  permanent  orders  of 
said  ministry  for  all  time. — Further  reduction  of  the  remaining  New  Testament 
appointments  to  this  standard. — Process. — Classification  according  to  their  powers 
or  functions,  in  connection  with  their  titles. — Eph.  4:11,  harmonized  with  1  Cor. 
12  :  28. — Their  powers. — Varied,  both  in  degree  and  duration. — The  first  apostles, 
superior. — Seven  marks  of,  etc. 


SECTION  VI. — pp.  115-123. 

The  Equality  of  "  the  Twelve  Apostles.'' — The  claim  of  Primacy  and  Supremacy  in 
behalf  of  Peter,  considered. — Fallacy  of. — Arguments.  1st.  In  their  Commission, 
Christ  addressed  all  alike. — 2d.  His  name,  l.st:  Its  change  from  Simon  to  Cephas. 
—YIerp<>s.—2(l:  Exposition  of  Matt.  16  :  18,  19,  "On  this  rock,"  etc.— 3d:  Do.  of 
the  latter  clause,  "  the  keys,"  etc. — 4th :  Do.  of  John  21  :  15-17,  "  Feed  my  sheep," 
etc. — 5th:  Review  of  Peter's  official  acts. —  (1.)  The  Convocation  of  Jerusalem. 
Acts  8  :  14-27. —  (2.)  His  accusation  and  defense,  Acts  12  :  1-18. —  (3.)  Dispute 
about  Circumcision,  Acts  15  :  1-21. —  (4.)  Do.  between  Paul  and  Peter,  Gal.  2: 
11-14. —  (5.)  Peter  styles  himself,  not  the  apostle,  but  an  apostle,  etc. 


SECTION  VII. — pp.  124-133. 

The  Number  of  the  Apostles. — Proof  that  there  were  "Twelve"  only. — Argued,  1st, 
from  the  Declared  Perpetual  Relation  of  "  the  Twelve"  to  Christ.     Luke  22  : 


CONTENTS. 

28-30. — 2d.  From  the  Name,  AiriaroXoi — examination  of  the  Titles  vpcaPvrtpo^; 
£T(V/c.jT(if,  Ji<i/f()i'05,  noifii'ii',  <!i(!uo-»aXof,  itpo^ftTii,  ayyiKiii. —  (1.)  The  Name  n»r(!(TriiXoj  al- 
leged in  behalf  of  some  to  whom  it  is  never  given — Andronicus  and  Junia,  Apol- 
los,  Silas  or  Silvanus,  Titus,  Timothy,  the  Seven  Apocalyptic  Angels. —  (2.)  Those 
to  whom  the  name  is  given,  who  were  not  of  "  the  Twelve." — Proof  that  it  is  ap- 
plied to  them  in  a  different  sense.  Barnabas,  Epaphroditus,  the  two  brethren  who 
accompanied  Titus  to  Corinth,  Matthias  and  Paul. 


SECTION  vin.— pp.  133-137. 

Proof,  that  Paul  filled  the  vacancy  created  by  the  fall  and  death  of  Judas — Acts  1  :  26, 
reconciled  with  the  above  — Objections  answered — 1st :  That  it  impugns  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  Sacred  Narrative  as  furnished  by  Luke — 2d :  That  Peter  being  in- 
spired, could  not  err — 3d  :  That  Peter  must  have  received  explicit  directions  from 
Christ — ^Ith  :  The  Election  of  Matthias  was  decided  by  lot — 5th  :  That  the  num- 
ber "  twelve"  is  applied  to  the  Apostles  both  before  and  after  the  Vocation  of  Paul. 
— Direct  proofs  of  Paul's  claims  over  those  of  Matthias. — 1st :  Peter's  agency  in 
the  above  transaction  was  premature — And  hence,  2d :  Unauthorized — 3d  :  Psalm 
109  :  8,  inapplicable  to  this  case — 4th:  No  evidence  that  it  was  dictated  by  the 
Holy  Ghost. — No  direct  evidence  that  the  Apostles  themselves  claimed  the  right  to 
fill  said  vacancy. — Conclusion. 


SECTION  IX. — pp.  138-141. 

Recapitulation  of  the  reduced  ministerial  N.  T.  appointments,  according  to,  first^  their 
titles  ;  and  second^  their  functions  and  titles. — Result :  The  whole  number  reduced 
to  four  orders — namely,  Apostles,  Prophets,  Evangelists,  and  Pastors  or  Teachers. — 
Proof,  that  neither  of  these  orders,  in  respect  to  their  original  primitive  endow- 
ments, was  designed  to  be  perpetuated  in  the  Church. — The  argument  applied,  •  1st, 
to  "  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb ;"  2d,  to  the  other  three  orders. — Their  (that 
is,  the  apostles's)  primitive  functions  not  transmissible,  though  their  names,  in  part, 
are  retained. 


CHAPTER  II. 

ORDINATION. 

SECTION   I.— pp.  142-147. 

Two  extremes  respecting  it. — As  a  ceremonial  action,  it  involves  "  the  laying  on  of 
hands." — Was  applied  to  various  uses. — This  Ceremonial  Action  defined. — Is  com- 

,  mon  to  every  Dispensation — 1st :  The  Patriarchal  Age — Instances  of  its  use — 2d : 
The  Jewish  Dispensation — Do. — 3d  :  The  Christian  Dispensation — Do.  as  em- 
ployed, (1)  by  Chuist.  Proof,  that  the  action,  as  employed  by  Him,  involved  no 
inherent  virtue  of  His  human  hand. —  (2.)    By  the  Apostles.     They  disclaimed  a// 


CONTENTS.  .  XI 

inherent  virtue  in  the  act  itself. — Instances  of  its  use  by  them,  First,  in  healing  the 
sick  ;  Second,  in  the  bestowment  of  Spiritual  Gifts  ;  Third,  in  the  setting  apart  of 
a  person  to  any  work  or  office,  special  or  ordinary. — These  two,  entirely  separate 
and  distinct  acts,  and  regarded  entirely  different  ends. — Proof,  that  the  bestowment 
of  spiritual  gifts  was  exclusively  the  work  of  the  Apostles,  and  constituted,  pre-em- 
inently, the  "  seaV  of  their  Apostleship. 


SECTION  II. — pp.  147-151. 

Proof,  that,  in  setting  apart  to  office,  others  beside  the  Apostles  laid  on  hands. — Instances 
of  the  recorded  ordinations  by  both — First,  by  the  Apostles ;  The  seven  deacons, 
Acts  6  :  1-8 — Second,  by  the  prophets  and  teachers  of  Antioch  ;  Saul  and  Barnabas, 
Acts  13  :  1-3 — Third,  Timothy  circumcised  by  Paul,  Acts  16  :  1-3 — also,  the  con- 
ferment on  him  by  Paul,  of  "  the  gift  of  God,"  2  Tim.  1  :  6, 1— Fourth,  Timothy's 
ordination  by  "the  presbytery"  of  Ephesus,  1  Tim.  4  :  14. — Proof  that,  as  these 
acts  occurred  at  different  times,  places,  and  occasions,  they  could  not  have  been 
identical. — Inference,  Paul  not  connected  with  his  ordination  by  "  the  presbytery." 


SECTION  in. — pp.  151-155. 

Proof  that  the  official  functions  of  Timothy,  and  of  "  the  Presbytery,"  were  not  iden- 
tical.— Timothy  and  Titus,  itinerating  Evangelists,  and,  as  such,  their  functions 
were  special  and  extraordinary,  and  therefore  temporary. — Remarks  respecting  the 
last  two  orders  :  Prophets,  and  Pastors  or  Teachers,  enumerated  in  Eph.  4:11. 


SECTION  IV. — ^pp.  156-158. 

Of  Elders,  Ruling  Elders,  and  Deacons. — Proof,  from  Paul's  directions  to  Timothy  and  Ti- 
tus respecting  them,  that  they  were  to  constitute  the  bou.ndary-line  which  divides 
the  extraordinary  and  temporary  ministry  of  the  Church,  from  that  which  was  in- 
tended for  its  ordinary  and  permanent  use,  to  the  end  of  time,  as  drawn,  First,  from 
the  directions  given  them — Second,  from  the  personal  qualifications  specified. — To 
be  inducted  into  office  by  the  laying  on  of  hands. — The  standard  model  ministry  of 
the  Church,  two  orders  only. 


SECTION  V. — pp.  159-168. 

Proof,  that  the  dual  orders  of  Presbyter-Bishop  and  Deacon  were  to  constitute  the  ordi- 
nary aiid  permanent  ministry  of  the  Church,  as  derived.  First,  from  the  inteichange- 
able  use  of  the  names  Elder,  Troiulivrtpag,  and  Bishop,  -I'trvoTrof,  to  denote  the  same 
office — Second,  from  the  two  classes  of  functions,  those  of  teaching,  preaching,  and 
governing,  and  those  of  ruling  only,  common  to  "' the  presbytery." — Passages  quoted 
in  illustration. — Remarks. — Mode  of  appointment,  that  of  popular  election,  or  elec- 
tion by  the  Church. — Import  of  the  term,  x£'po™>""i^'  • — Paul's  instructions  to  Timo- 
thy.— Tills  office  in  the  Church  of  Christ  shown  1o  be  most  reasonable  in  itself. — 


XU  CONTENTS. 

Advantages  of. — Further  proof  of  the  dual  orders  of  Presbyter  and  Deacons,  as  drawn, 
1st,  from  the  answer  to  the  objection  urged  against  the  mixed  nature  of  the  func- 
tions of  the  eldership,  etc. — 2d,  from  the  Pauline  address  to  the  Church  at  Phiiippi. 
— Scriptural  account  of  the  office  of  Deacon. 


SECTION  VI. — ^pp.  168-170. 

Recapitulation  of  the  argument,  etc. — Conclusion. 


PART  III. 

MINISTERIAL  PARITY,  VERSUS  PRELACY. 

CHAPTEE  I. 

THE   PREDICTED   TRIAL  AND   APOSTASY   OF    THE    CHURCH,     UNDER 
THE    CHRISTIAN  DISPENSATION. 

SECTION  I. — pp.  171-178. 

Introduction.  The  characteristics  of  the  New  Testament  Ministry,  as  exhibited  in 
Part  II.  of  this  Treatise,  shown  to  have  been  eminently  simple  and  fraternal. — This 
Ministry  to  be  the  center-point  of  a  further  trial  of  the  Church's  integrity  to  Christ 
the  Head. — Her  defection  the  subject  of  prophecy. — The  basis  of  that  defection,  the 
tendency  of  all  orders  of  creaturehood,  angelic  and  human,  to  self-deification. — Its 
mode  of  development  in  the  Church,  a  love  of  "  the  pre-eminence." — Its  progress, 
gradual. — Its  fruit,  the  Papacy. 


CHAPTER  11. 

EXAMINATION  OF  THE  PKELATICAL  DOGMA — EOlsnsn,  TEACTAEIAN,  AND 
HIGH  AND  LOW  CHUECH OF  AN  ALLEGED  UNINTEEEUPTED  SUCCES- 
SION FKOM  THE  APOSTLES,  BY  SEMINAL  DEEIVATION. 

SECTION  I. — pp.  179-183. 

Preliminary  remarks. — Prelacy. — Its  diversified  forms. — Substantially  the  same. — Con- 
sidered as  a  question  of  fact.— Four  stand- points  regarding  it,  as  landmarks  in  the 
discussions  which  follow.— Protean  character  of  the  Prelatico-Episcopal  theory.— If 
true,  must  be  shown— 1st:  To  be  derived  directly  from  Christ  himself— 2d  :  Must 
exercise  all  the  functions  Apostolical,  especially  that  of  conferring  the  '•  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghosl'-- 3d:  Must  prove  that  they  were  appointed  to  complete  what  the 
Apostles  left  in  an  unfinished  state. 


SECTION  n. — pp.  184-188. 

The  only  modes  of  escape  from  the  above   hypotheses— 1st:  Positive  evidence  that 
Christ  delegated  to  others  the  authority  to  propagate  said  succession— 2d :  Also  of 


CONTENTS.  XI H 

the  persons  by  whom  and  on  whom,  and  the  time  when  and  the  place  where,  said 
apostolic  office  and  functions  were  conferred. — The  system  defined. — Exami- 
nation of  the  alleged  evidence  in  support  of — namely,  "  holy  Scripture  and  ancient 
authors."  I.  "Holy  Scripture" — prelatical  arguments  from — (1.)  "  Lo,  I  am 
with  you  alway,"  etc. — ;2.)  "As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,"  etc. —  (3.)  "No  man 
taketh  this  honor,"  etc. — Bishop  McCoskrey  on. — Remarks  on. — Necessity  of 
exhibiting  the  system  as  it  is. — Proof  that,  cardinal  to  said  system  is  its  perpetual 
priestly  and  sacerdotal  character  with  vicarial  functions. 


SECTION  ni. — pp.  189-195. 

Examination  of  the  alleged  evidence,  as  derived  from  the  typical  character  and  conse- 
quent analogy  of  the  Christian  ministry  to  the  Aaronic  priesthood. — Definition  of 
the  theory. — Quotations  from  its  four  classes  of  advocates  : — I.  The  Romish  the- 
ory : — II.  The  Tractarian  theory : — III.  The  High  Church  theory ;  Bishop  McCos- 
krey : — IV.  The  Low  Church  theory ;  Bishop  Griswold. — The  Book  of  Common 
Prayer. — Episcopacy  as  founded  in  expediency. — Fallacy  of. — Proof,  that  in  its  most 
diluted  form,  it  is  invested  with  vicarial  powers. — It  is  Judaism  with  a  Christian 
name. — Is  identical  with  the  High  Church,  Tractarian,  and  Romish  theories  of. — 
Consequences:  contentions,  strife,  divisions. — Dilemma  of  the  Low  Church  party. — 
Must  place  their  system  on  the  platform  of  expediency  alone,  or  admit  its  priestly 
character. — Mode  of  their  attempt  to  escape  from. — The  reader  admonished. — Trac- 
tarians,  etc.  the  most  consistent. 


SECTION  IV. — pp.  195-202. 

Arguments  demonstrative  of  the  fallacy  of  the  alleged  typical  analogy  of  the  Christian 
ministry  to  the  Aaronic  priesthood — 1st :  The  two  compared — 2d  :  Christ  himself 
the  only  antitype  of  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  sacrifices — 3d :  No  resemblance 
between  the  orders  of  the  two — The  test  applied — (1.)  to  the  Anglican  episcopacy 
— (2.)  to  the  Romish. — 4th  :  Further  proof,  derived  from  the  absolute  perfection  of 
the  antitypal  sacrifice  of  Christ — 5th  :  No  evidence  of  the  transfer  by  Christ  to 
others,  of  His  priestly  office  and  functions. — Conclusion. — The  Romish  and  Trac- 
tarian theories  the  most  consistent. — Unfortunate  dilemma  of  Low  Churchmen. 


CHAPTER  III. 

OF  THE  j^XLEGED  POWERS  OF  THE  PKELATIOAL  PRIESTHOOD. 

SECTION  I. — pp.  203-209. 

The  apostolical  powers,  if  continued,  must  be  exercised  whole  and  entire. — Division  of 
their  functions  by  prelatists  into  e.xtraordinary  and  ordinary. — Bishops  Taylor, 
Griswold,  and  Mcllvaine  on.— Design  of. — Fallacy  of — Dr.  Barrow  and  Cardinal 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

Bdlarmine  on. — Prelatical  dilemma. — Though  they  deny  the  continuance  of  the  ex- 
traonliuary  functions  apostolic,  yet  claim  to  exercise  the  highestof  their  miraculous 
powers,  namely,  that  of  conferring  "  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." — Proofs,  quota- 
tions from — 1st:  The  Romanists— 2d  :  Tractarians — ;Jd:  High  Church;  Bishop 
Jeremy  Taylor — 4th :  Low  Cliurch ;  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  (Ordinal  of  Or- 
dination.)— Discretionary  form  of. — Remarks  on. — Bishop  Mcllvaine. — Policy  of 
the  above  scheme. 


SECTION  n. — pp.  210-213. 

The  same  subject  continued. — On  the  extent  of  the  alleged  powers  apostolical,  as 
claimed  in  behalf  of  their  successors. — Preliminaries. — Substratum  of  the  prelatico- 
episcopal  theory. — Principle  involved,  namely,  Prelacy,  as  essential  to  the  being  of 
the  Church. — Argument  for,  not  the  name,  but  the  ads,  etc. — Bishops  Griswold  and 
Mcllvaine. — Essential  to  the  support  of — Fallacy  of. — The  name,  apostle,  retained 
by  Bishop  Mcllvaine. — Equivocal  and  contradictory  use  of,  by  prelatists. — Bishops 
Mcllvaine  and  H.  U.  Onderdonk  compared. — How  used  in  the  time  of  Ignatius. 


SECTION  ni. — p]3.  214-219. 

The  subject  continued. — Extent  of  the  alleged  prelatical  functions. — Their  incongnious 
and  discordant  views  of. — The  subject  applied — 1st :  To  the  nature,  character,  and 
powers  of  "  the  twelve" — Alleged  Headship  of  Christ  transferred  to  them — Bishops 
Griswold  and  McCoskrey — Absurdity  of — 2d :  Its  transfer  by  the  Apostles  to  others 
— Bishops  Griswold  and  McCoskrey — Whole  and  entire. — Contradicted  by  the  dis- 
tinction made  by  them  between  the  extraordinary  and  ordinary  functions  apostolic. 
— Continuance  of  miraculous  powers  in  the  line  of  prelatical  bishops,  positively 
affirmed  by  Maurice. — Made  to  depend,  however,  on  their  faithfulness. — By  others, 
denied. — Quotations  from  "  Tracts  for  the  Times,"  Bishop  Mcllvaine. — Rev.  Mr. 
Melville. — Taken  together,  the  system  is  complete. 


SECTION  ly. — pp.  220-226. 

Aggregate  powers  of  the  prelatico-episcopal  priesthood,  as  advocated  b)',  1st,  The  Ro- 
manists —  (1.)  Of  the  priesthood  generally. —  (2.)  Of  the  popedom  in  particular. — 
(o.)  Immaculate. — (6.)  Infallible. — (c.)  Their  spiritual  powers. — (^d.)  Their  tem- 
poral powers. —  (e.)  Their  supremacy,  absolute  and  universal. —  (3  )  The  Romish, 
"  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  churches." — Means  employed  for  her  extension 
and  support. — 2d.  Protestant  prelatists,  Anglican  and  American. —  (1.)  Of  the 
ministry  as  a  Christian  priesthood. —  (2.)  Of  their  official  powers. — Bishops  Gris- 
wold and  McCoskrey.  See  p.  191. —  (a.)  Immaculate. —  (6.)  Infallible.— (c.) 
Their  spiritual  powers. — Absolution. — Mediation. — Dr.  Dodwell. — Bishops  Gris- 
wold and  Mcllvaine. — Inference. 


CONTENTS.  XV 

SECTION  V. — ^pp.   227-231. 

Episcopo-priestly  arrogance,  exclusiveness,  etc.,  in  regard,  1st.  To  the  ministry. — Re- 
marks on. — Protestant  Prelatists. — Dodvvell. — Bishops  Griswold  and  McCoskrey. — 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng.  D.D.— 2d.  The  Church,  Anglican 
and  American,  identical. — Rev.  Mr.  Palmer,  Bishop  Hobart,  Fowler's  Catechism, 
and  Bishops  Brownell  and  Griswold.— :0f  the  Episcopal  theory  of  the  Church. — 
(1.)  Spiritual. —  (2.)  Ecclesiastico-political. — Anglican. — Herunion  with  the  State. — 
Henry  VIII.  declared  the  supreme  head  of,  in  Spirituals  and  Temporals. — Absolute 
and  unlimited. — Continued  under  Edward  VI. — Restored  under  Elizabeth. — Re- 
mains in  force  to  this  day. 


SECTION  VI. — pp.  231-240. 

Hence  the  surrender,  by  the  Anglican  Church,  of  her  independence  to  the  Civil  Magis- 
trate.— Henry  VIII.  the  fountain  of  the  English  Apostolical  Succession. — See  the 
King's  commission  to  Cranmer. — Renewed  under  Edward  VI. — The  American 
Episcopal  Church  at  the  period  of  the  Revolution. — Bishop  Seabury,  of  Connec- 
ticut.— Derivation  of  American  Episcopacy. — Obstacles. — How  removed. — Ap- 
proximations, in  spirit  and  in  form,  of  the  Ecclesiastico-political  character  of  the 
American  to  the  Anglican  Hierarchy. — Her  unprotestantizing  tendencies. — The 
British  Critic— The  New  York  Diocesan  Conventions  of  1839  and  1843.— Rev. 
S.  H.  Tyng,  D.D. — Objections. — These  are  but  individual  opinions,  etc.— Reply. — 
Hobartian  sentiment  of  Charity  towards  Anti-Episcopalians. — Fallacy  of. — Six 
inferences  from  the  above. — Conclusion. 


CHAPTEE  IV. 

OF  THE  PEELATICO-EPISCOPAL  THEORY  OP  OEDESTATION,  AS  THE  ONLY 
ALLEGED  DIVINELY- APPOINTED  MODE  OF  PERPETUATING  THE  APOS- 
TOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

SECTION  I. — pp.  241-245. 

Recapitulation  of  the  preceding  two  additional  points  of  inquiry. — Ordination,  or 
"the  laying  on  of  hands"  by  Christ,  his  apostles  and  their  successors,  alleged  to  be 
the  only  channel  of  perpetuating  a  valid  ministry  and  ordinances,  through  "  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." — Quotations  from  Romanists,  the  Anglican  and  American 
Ordinal,  Bishop  Taylor,  Dr.  Hook,  and  Bishops  Beveridge,  Hobart,  Griswold,  and 
Mcllvaine. — Remarks  on  Ordination  in  Part  II.  of  this  Treatise. — Fallacy  of  the 
above  theory. — Three  inferences. — Prelatical  and  Anti-Prelatical  theories  com- 
pared.— Proof  that  the  Prelatical  theory  is  borrowed  from  Rome,  etc. 


SECTION  II. — pp.  245-250. 

Direct  examination  of  the  alleged  fact,  regarding  an  unbroken  apostolical  succession 
from  "the   twelve"  down  to  this  day. — 1.    The   Romish  system. — 2.    The  Tracta- 


XVI  CONTENTS, 

rian  or  Puseyite  system. — 3.  The  High  Church  system. — 4.  The  so-called 
Evangelical  Low  Church  system. — 5.  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer. — Summary 
.  of  the  above. — Preliminary. — Three  consecrators  indispensable  to  impart  validity 
to  each  consecutive  link  in  the  alleged  chain. — Canons,  on. — (1.)  Requires  Episco- 
pal baptism. —  (2.)  Ordination  as  deacon  and  priest. — (3.)  Imposition  of  hands  by 
three  bishops. — Apostolical  Canons. — Du  Pin  and  Bishop  Griswold. — The  process 
of  prelatical  ordination  illustrated. — All  who  are  not  so  ordained,  denounced  as 
"gross  impostors." — Bishop  McCoskrey. 


SECTION  III. — ^pp.  251-252. 

Prelacy,  as  claiming  to  be  the  antitype  of  the  Aaronic  orders,  must  hold  its  analogy  to 
the  mode  of  its  transmission  and  perpetuity. — The  two  modes  compared. — Queiy. 
Did  Christ  impose  his  hands  on  the  twelve? — Proof  that  he  did  not. — Import  of 
the  term  KaOi'-Trr)^!. — Archbishop  Potter  on. — Ab.surdity  of  the  prelatical  hypo- 
thesis. 


SECTION  IV. — pp.  253-261. 

The  question  of  genealogy,  as  involved  in  the  theory  of  prelacy. — The  term  defined. — 
Applied,  1.  To  Christ. — 2.  To  the  Jewish  commonwealth. — 3.  To  the  Levitical 
priesthood. — Illustrations  of  the  exactness  of  their  tabular  views. — High  prelatical 
claims  of,  in  support  of  the  alleged  succession. — Preliminaries  to  a  further  exami- 
nation of — The  law  of  analogy  requires  a  correspondence  between  the  Christian 
ministry  and  its  alleged  Aaronic  "  model"  in  the  articles  of,  1st.  Their  respective 
vocations. — 2d.  Their  limits  or  spheres  of  operation. — 3d.  Prelatical  dilemma. — 
The  Christian  Church  built,  not  on  apostleSj  etc.,  but  on  priests. — 4th.  Another. — 
Twelve  foundation  .stones. — Twelve  chains. — Proof,  that  such  an  analogous  genea- 
logical succession  formed  no  part  of  the  apostles's  mission. — Inference. 


SECTION  V. — ^pp.  261-268. 

Direct  examination  of  the  prelatical  theory  of  succession  as  an  alleged  fact. — Involves 
the  process  of  a  procreating  power. — Absurdity  of. — Illustrated  in  the  case  of  Paul" 
and  Judas  Iscariot.  —  Anti-prelatical  theory  of  the  succession.  —  Archbishop 
Whately  on. — The  two  theories  compared. — The  high  pretensions  of  prelacy. — 
Tremendous  consequences  pending  the  issue. — Must  be  subjected  to  the  severest 
test. — Requisites  for. — I.  Authentic  documents — None  to  be  found. — II.  An  au- 
thentic '•  Register"  or  catalogue — None  ever  produced. — III.  A  triple  agency  in 
welding  each  successive  link — The  pretense  preposterous. — IV.  Such  procreating 
power  has  no  archetype  in  nature — Hence  designated  by  Paul,  "  endless  gene- 
alogies," (1  Tim.  1  :  4.) 


CONTENTS.  Xvii 

SECTION  VI. — pp.  269-274. 

Scriptural  examination  of  the  above  theory. — "  The  Twelve  Apostles." — These,  if  equil, 
must  each  have  a  separate  chain. — Denied  by  Prelatists. — Yet  cannot  agree  as  to 
whom  the  honor  of  starting  the  chain  belongs. — Creed  of  Pius  IV. — Dr.  Hook. — 
Rev.  A.  B.  Chapin.— St.  Peter.— St.  Paul— St.  John.— St.  James,  etc. — Starting  of 
the  chain  as  an  alleged  fact. — Dr.  Stone. — Mode  of,  by  "  laying  on  of  hands." — The 
first  links. — Bishops  McCoskrey  and  Mcllvaine. — Positive  evidence  indispensable. — 
Tested  by  its  application,  ^st,  to  Matthias. — Fallacy  of. — 2d,  to  Barnabas. — Bishop 
Mcllvaine  versus  the  Evangelist  Luke. 


SECTION  VII. — ^pp.  274-279. 

Same  subject  continued. — 3.  Timothy. — Dr.  Stone. — Bishop  Griswold. — Positively  af- 
firms his  consecration  by  "several"  apostles,  namely,  the  Ephesian  presbytery. — Ar- 
gument in  support  of. — Fallacy  of. — The  apostolicity  of  the  Ephesian  presbytery 
denied  by  Bishop  Hobart. — His  interpretation  of  Met,  and  Aia. — Fallacy  of. — The 
question  fundamental  in  these  premises  is,  Was  Paul  personally  identified  with  the 
Ephesian  presbytery  in  Timothy's  ordination  ? — Proof  that  he  was  not.— Conclu- 
sion.— A  choice  between  two  absurdities. — 4.  Titus. — Remarks  on. 


SECTION  vni. — 280-283. 

Of  diocesan  Episcopacy. — Timothy,.  Titus,  and  the  seven  apocalyptic  "  angels"  alleged 
to  have  been  diocesan  bishops. — Fallacy  of,  in  regard  to  Timothy  and  Titus. — 
Angels  of  the  seven  Churches. — Dr.  Henry  More,  Joseph  Mede,  Dr.  Fulke,  and 
Bishop  Stillingfleet  on — Additional  proof  of  the  fallacy  of — Examination  and  refu- 
tation of  Bishop  McCoskrey's  use  of  Christ's  commendation  of  the  Ephesian 
"  angel,"  for  having  ''  tried  them  which  say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not,"  etc. — 
Conclusion. 


CHAPTER  Y. 

OF  THE  ROMISH  LINE  OF  THE  ALLEGED  UNBROKEN  SUCCESSION. 

SECTION  I. — pj).  284-288. 

This  theory  involves  the  establishment,  by  Christ,  of  a  chair  of  primacy  and  supre- 
macy in  the  Christian  Church. — Romanists  affirm,  Protestants  deny. — The  points 
involved  stated. — Bellarmine  and  Boniface  VHI.  quoted. — Fallacy  of  their  assump- 
tions proved,  first  from  Scripture. — First,  no  evidence  that  Christ  founded  any 
such  primacy,  etc. — Remarks  on  the  name  Pope. — Second,  dilemma  of  the 
Romish  hypothesis  as  shown  from  three  rivals  to  Peter  as  the  first  alleged  primate 
namely,  James,  Paul  and  John. 


XVm  CONTENTS. 

SECTION   II. — pp.  288-292. 

Fallacy  of  the  Romish  theory  of  the  Succession,  as  derived  from  the  nature  of  traditional 
evidence. — Proof,  that  Peter  never  visited  Rome. — Acts  15  quoted. — Examination 
of  traditionary  fragaients. — Eusebius,  Papias,  Dionysias  of  Corinth,  Caius,  Irenaeus. 
— His  statements  regarding  Polycarp  invalidated. — The  Latin  translation  of  his  works 
not  reliable. — He  does  not  affirm  that  Peter  was  Bishop  of  Rome. — Further  proof 
from  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans. — Romanists  not  agreed  as  to  Peter's  primacy  at 
Rome. — Direct  proof  from  Scripture. 


SECTION  III. — pp.  292-296. 

The  Romish  dogma  of  an  unbroken  succession  subjected  to  the  test  of  "  ancient  authors  " 
or  Tradition. — Preliminary. — It  is  a  question  of  genealogy. —  One  absent  link 
breaks  the  chain. — The  pretense,  a  grand  and  stupendous  deception. — Arguments 
continued,  demonstrative  of  its  fallacy. — Fifth.  The  Romish  argument  for,  as 
based  on  the  alleged  preservation  of  the  Scriptures  by  that  Church. — Sixth.  Rom- 
ish schisms. — Seventh.  Absence  of  uniformity  in  the  pontifical  elections. 


SECTION  rv. — pp.  297-302. 

The  subject  continued — Eighth:  Fallacy  of  the  above  dogma,  as  drawn  from  the 
moral  character  of  the  Popedom. — Barronius,  Mich,  de  Chemaugis,  Prideaux,  Dr. 
Whitby,  the  Emperor  Maximilian,  etc. — Ninth  :  Romish  concessions  of  breaks 
in  this  alleged  chain. — Barronius,  Bishop  Purcell,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio. — Terrific  pre- 
latical  dilemma. — The  attempt  to  escape  from,  by  Protestant  prelatists,  under  the 
plea  that  they  are  not  dependent  on  Rome  for  their  succession. — Subsequent  notice 
of. — Bishop  Purcell's  mode  of  escape. — Fallacy  of. — Tenth  :  Evident  absurdity  of 
the  above  dogma — Makes  the  uninspired  Linus  the  primate  over  the  inspired  apos- 
tle John. — Eleventh:  Closing  argument. — Palpable  defects  of  the  best  authenti- 
cated lists  of  the  alleged  succession. — The  prelatical  hypothesis  of,  absolutely  ex- 
cludes the  idea  of  an  intervening  break,  as  to  time,  in  perpetuating  the  chain. — 
The  Romish  biographer  Plautina  on. — Bishop  Purcell. — The  "  Register"  reliable, 
only  in  proportion  to  the  uniformity  and  agreement  of  the  chroniclers. 


SECTION  V. — pp.   302-306. 

The  records  of  early  antiquity. — Our  Canon  on. — Eusebius. — His  testimony  defective. — 
The  reader  admonished. — Endless  confusion  of  the  chronicles  of  the  first  links. — 
1st,  Peter. — Flaccius  Illyricus,  Zanchius,  Archbishop  Cranmer,  Dr  Cave. — Peter's 
successor. — Variations  in  the  Roman  Pontifical  Index. — Plautina,  Tertullian,  Rufinas, 
Epiphaneous,  contradicted  by  Iren^us,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  Augustine. — While 
Bishop  Pearson,  and  Dr.  Comber  differ  from  them. — Cabussate,  Prideaux,  Howell, 
etc. — Papal  authorities,  etc. — Eight  specimens  o!  the  first  five  links,  ciUled  from 
Eusebius  and  others.— Challenge  to  Prelatists  to  harmonize  any  two  of  them. 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

SECTION  VI. — pp.  306-323. 

Five  catalogues  of  the  Popes  of  Rome. — Eusebius,  Chapin,  Watson,  Anonymous,  and 
Gavin. — The  prelatical  theory  of  succession  excludes  any  break  in  the  chain. — Re- 
view of  the  above  catalogues. — Variations  both  in  names  and  the  number  of. — Disa- 
greement between  Chapin  and  Canon  II. — His  omission  to  notice  the  schisms  in. — 
Omits  Pope  Joan  (a  woman) ,  the  10.5th  in  Gavin's  list.— Failure  of  the  "  Re- 
cord" at  the  very  point  where  all  should  be  explicit  and  complete — Illustrated.— 
First  recorded  instance  of  a  consecration  by  three  bishops,  a.d.  585. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  ANGLICAJT  LINE  OF  THE  ALLEGED    UNBROKEN  SUCCESSION. 

SECTION  I. — ^pp.  324-332. 

Episcopacy,  as  founded  in  expediency  alone. — Recognized  the  perfect  equality  of  Bish- 
ops and  Presbyters. — Was  adopted  as  an  ecclesiastical  arrangement  only. — Jerome 
on. — An  unwarrantable  innovation  of  the  New  Testament  ministry. — Jerome. — 
Originated  the  distinction  in  ecclesiastical  titles. — Amalarius,  Theodoret,  Bingham, 
etc. — A  mere  human  device. — Formed  the  germ  of  Prelacy  and  the  Papacy. — 
Prelatical  denial  of  primitive  parity. — Answer. — Jerome. — Bingham. — Diocesan 
Episcopacy. — Archbishop  Whately  on. — Ministerial  parity  affirmed  by  Bishop 
Mcllvaine  to  be  unknown  to  the  Chui'ch  till  the  sixteenth  century. — Answer. — 
Proof  of  its  New  Testament  origin  and  primitive  prevalence. — Was  adopted  by 
the   first  Anglican  Reformers. — Principles  on  which  it  may  be   adopted  or  re- 

^      tained. — Appeal  to  those  who  are  really  Low  Church. 


SECTION  II. — 332-335. 

The   alleged  Anglican  Succession. — Aspect,  etc.,  of  England  at  the  time  of  Henry 

VIII. 
Review  of  Rev.  A.  B.  Chapin's  work  on  "  The  Organization  of  the  Primitive 

Church,"  etc. 
Proposes  to  trace  the  English  Succession  in  several  different  ways. — Remarks 


SECTION  III. — pp.  335-338. 

The  subject  continued. — Mr.  Chapin's  sources  of  instruction. — Tradition. — His  testimony 
regarding  them. — Benedictine  monks,  etc. — The  "  Gallia  Christiana." — A  mistake 
of  Mr.  C. — His  singular  mode  of  tracing  the  apostolical  succession. — ^Alleges  the 
English  succession  to  come  from  Ephesus,  etc. — Claims  Augustine  as  the  first  Saxon 
Bishop,  and  the  first  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. — Design  of  this  theory,  to  avoid  its 
derivation  from  Rome. — Two  difficulties  for  Mr.  C. — First:  With  those  prelatists 
who  admit  said  succession  from  Rome. — Second:  With  himself — (l.)  His  authorities 
in  support  of  his  new  line. — (2.)  His  error  regarding  Poiycarp's  alleged  consecra- 
tion by  the  apostle  John. — Eusebius,  Gallia  Christiana,  Bcde,  Barronius. — Their 
statements  irreconcilable  with  authentic  data. — Dr.  Cook,  Bishop  Pearson,  Bishop 
Purcell,  etc. — Tabular  view,  etc. 


XX  CONTENTS. 

SECTION  IV. — pp.  338-343, 

The  subject  continued. — ^The  English  succession  from  Aijgustine  to  the  present  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury. — Cardinal  Pole. — The  English  succession  from  Paul. — 
Bishop  McCoskrey. — His  authorities,  etc.— Bishop  Stillingfleet,  Rev.  H.  Carey, 
Mr.  E.  Churton,  etc. — A  bird's-eye  view  of  the  relation  of  old  Britain  to  Rome, 
about  A.D.  595. — Favorable  to  the  establishment  of  a  universal  spiritual  empire. — 
Gregory  I. — John,  Bishop  of  Constantinople  — Augustine's  mission  to  Kent,  En- 
gland.— Romi.sh. — His  authority  over  the  Anglican  Bishops. — Proof,  that  England 
was  not  independent  of  Rome  at  this  time. — Dilemma  of  Mr.  C. — Double  dilemma 
of  Bishop  McCoskrey  and  Mr.  C.  regarding  the  old  British  and  the  Anglo-English 
bishops. 


SECTION  V. — pj).  344-350. 

Proof  positive,  that,  in  the  time  of  Augustine,  and  for  nearly  one  hundred  years  after, 

no  ecclesiastical  connection  existed  between  the  former  and  the  latter  bishops. — Mr. 

E.  Churton,  Bede,  etc. — 
This,  the  most  important  point  of  the  Historico-Prelatical  Controversy. — Involves  the 

necessity  to  show, 
I. — How  the  succession  through  Canterbury  is  derived  from  the  '•  Old  British  Church." 

— ilr.  C.  here  compared  with  himself — '-The  Culdees."' — Mr.  E.  Churton. — Bede. 

— Aidan. — His  ordination  Prcsbylerial. — Inference  fatal  to  Mr.  C.'s  theory. — 
II. — Must  demonstrate  the  total  exemption  of  the  English  Church  from  all  subjection  to, 

or  connection  with,  the  See  of  Rome. — "  The  Old  British  Bishops"  subdued  to  the 

obedience  of  Rome,  a.d.  668. — Persecution  of. — Bede  charges  it  on  Augustine. — 

Lauded  by  Mr.  E.  Churton. 


SECTION  VI. — pp.  350-355. 

Distinction  between  the  British  Church  and  the  JInglo- English,  admitted  by  Mr.  C. 
His  disingenuousness.  and  glaring  sophistry. — Effect  of. — Mr.  C.  further  com- 
pared with  himself  in  regard  to  Augustine. — Fallacy  of  the  plea  of  his 
"  very  providential"  (alias)  Protestant  (!)  ordination,  by  the  Archbishops  of 
Aries  and  of  Lyons. — Gregory's  repl;-  to  Augustine's  seventh  of  the  nine  questions 
proposed  to  him. — Legate  of  Leo  I.  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  a.u.  455. — Decree 
of  the  Emperor  .Justinian  III.— Not  annulled  between  a.d.410  and  590. — Romanism 
of  Augustine. — Mr.  Turner  and  Archdeacon  Mason  on.— Mr.  C.'s  admission,  that 
•the  Anglo-Saxons  were  converted  by  Augustine. — 10,000  baptized  in  one  day.— 
The  present  Cathedral  of  Canterbury  identical  with  that  erected  for  Augustine  by 
his  first  royal  convert,  Ethelbert,  King  of  Kent. — Hence  the  Romish  origin  and 
descent  of  the  English  line  of  archbishops.— Proved  from  Mr.  C.'s  own  book. — 
Vide  his  Catalogue  of  the  Succession,  divided  into  four  parts  ;  for  which,  see  next 
Section. 


CONTENTS.  XXI 

SECTION  VII. — pp.  355-364. 

THE    SUBJECT    CONTINUED THE  SUCCESSION, 

From  St.  John  to  Augustine. — 2.  From  Augustine  to  Cranmer. — Explanation  of  the 
nature  and  use  "of  "  THE  PALL." — Coeval  with  the  time  of  Augustine,  and  re- 
tained by  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  to  this  day  ! — Fallacy  of  tlie  plea  of  the 
independence  of  the  Anglo-English  Church. — Loss  of  the  independence  of  "  the 
Old  British  Church"  after  a.  d.  731. — Bede. — Evidence  of  the  disingenuousness  of 
Mr.  C— Proof  that  instead  of  only  ONE,  there  are  THIRTY-SIX  Archbishops 
of  Canterbury  and  York  between  AUGUSTINE  and  CRANMER,  who  received 
their  PALLS  from  POPISH  hands  !— What  then  becomes  of  the  English  succes- 
sion, if  these  share  the  same  fate  with  Cardinal  POLE  ? — Extraordinary  evolution 
of  Mr.  C. — Failing  in  his  attempts  to  dodge  old  Rome  by  way  of  Ephesus,  Old 
Britain,  Scotland,  Ireland,  etc.,  in  order  to  place  the  validity  of  the  English  suc- 
cession beyond  the  reach  of  controversy,  he  assures  the  reader  that  that  succession 
can  be  traced  back  to  the  Apostles  St.  John  and  St.  Paul,  not  only,  but  also  to  St. 
PETER,  the  first  bishop  of  the  ROMISH  SEE. 


SECTION  vni. — pp.  365-370. 


THE   ENGLISH    SUCCESSIOK,    FROM    THE    PERIOD    OF    THB    REFORMATION    UNDER 
THE   REIGN    OF    HENRY   VIII. 

The  subject  continued. — 3.  The  English  succession  from  Cranmer  to  John  Moore. — 
Tabular  view. — Another  attempt  of  Mr.  Chapin  to  dodge  the  Romish  line. — Jeru- 
salem, through  James. — Proof  that  James  was  not  the  bishop  of. — Patriarchate  of 
St.  Davids  from. — Do.,  of  Llandaff  from  Gall. — Fallacy  of. — Mr.  C.  in  error  in 
regard  to  his  alleged  union  of  the  old  British  bishops  with  Augustine  in  preaching 
to  the  English. — Three  inferences. — Fallacy  of  the  alleged  independence  of  the 
English  Church  proved  by  Mr.  C.'s  own  statements. — Her  claim  thereto  a  bor- 
rowed glory. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  TRUE  CHARACTER  OF  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH  VIEWED  IN  THE  ASPECT 
OF  HER  ORIGIN,  AND  OF  HER  ACTS  AS  "  THE  PROTESTANT  CHURCH  OF 
ENGLAND  AS  BY  LAW  ESTABLISHED."      HER  PROSPECTS,  ETC. 


SECTION  I. — ^pp.  371-375. 


Proof,  that  the  Anglo-English  Church,  between  Augustine  and  Henry  VIII.,  was  not' 
independent  of  Rome. — The  old  British  bishops,  the  only  protesters  against  the 
usurpations  of  Augustine. — Loegria. — The  Cymri. — Conversion  of  the  former  by 
Augustine. — Formed  the  basis  of  the  Anglo-English  Hierarchy. — A  solemn  pro- 
test against  Mr.  C.'s  alleged  independence  of  the  Anglican  Church  and  Succession, 
of  that  of  the  Romish  See. 
C 


xxii  CONTENTS. 


SECTION  II. — ^pp.  3 7  5-3 79. 


Proof  of  the  schismatical  character  of  the  English  Reformation  under  Henry  VIII., 
Edward  VI.,  and  Elizabeth. — Difference  between  the  cardinal  principles  of  the 
English  and  of  the  Continental  Reformations,  as  to  their  practical  results,  etc. — 
The  Continent  the  seat  of  the  Protestant  Reformation — Ciande,  Bishop  of  Turin, 
A.  D.  831-840. — The  Waldenses. — (See  also  Appendix.) — Persecution  of. — Popes. — 
Alexander  III.,  Lucius  II.,  Clement  III.,  Celestine  III.,  Innocent  111.,  Honorius 
III.,  Gregory  IX.,  Innocent  IV.,  Alexander  IV.,  a.  d.  1159-1199. — Count  Raymond 
of  Toulouse,  A.  D.  1208. — About  70,000  massacred. — Reformation  still  spreads. — 
Present  Waldenses  in  the  valleys  of  Piedmont — John  Milicz,  a.  d.  1360-13C7. — 
Huss,  A.  D.  1400. — Waldenses  in  England. — Jerome  of  Prague,  do.,  a.  d.  1402. — 
Wickliffe,  the  English  Reformer. — Romanism  again  dominant  till  a.  d.  1521. — 
Heruy  VIII.  assumes  the  supremacy. 


SECTION  III. — pp.  379-381. 

THE    LUTHERAN    REFORMATION,    A.D.    1517. 

Founded  on  the  two  great  Protestant  principles  named  above. — Spreads  with  great  ra- 
pidity.— Results. — His  coadjutors,  Melancthon,  Zwingle,  Bullinger,  Carlstadt, 
QEcolampadius,  Erasmus,  Bucer,  P.  Martyr,  and  the  renowned  Calvin. 


SECTION  IV. — pp.  382-392. 

THE    ANGLO-ENGLISH    REFORMATION. 

Proof  that  it  was  commenced  and  conducted  on  principles  cardinally  different  from  that 
on  the  Continent. — Essentially  Romish  and  Antichristian. — Never  repudiated  by 
that  Church. — HENRY  VIII.  a  Laic,  yet  constituted  Supreme  Head,  Spiritual  and 
Temporal,  of  that  Church,  by  Convocation  and  by  Parliament. — Result. — Two 
Supreme  Heads  and  two  Catholic  Churches. — Both  claiming  to  be  founded  in 
"the  Right  OF  Prescription." — Romanists  have  the  vantage  ground. — English 
Church  guilty  of  Rapacity  and  Schism. — Examination  of  this  claim,  "  the  Right 
of  Prescription,"  by  the  English  Church,  as  involving  the  doctrine  of  "  The 
Divine  Right  of  Kings." — 1st,  By  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament ;  2d,  do. 
New  Testament.— The  Laico-Royal  Head  of  the  Anglican  Church,  the  FOUN- 
TAIN of  the  ENGLISH  and  AMERICAN  SUCCESSIONS.— Proof  that  the 
assumption  of  the  SUPREMACY  by  Henry  VIII.,  and  the  reconstruction  of  the 
English  Church  under  him  and  his  successors,  are  in  their  character  antichristian. — 
Proof  of  the  rapacity  of  Henry  in  seizing  upon,  and  his  successors  in  retaining,  the 
Monastic  Possessions. — Use  of,  to  bribe  the  aristocracy  to  support  the  "  Church 
and  State"  alliance. — This  irreconcilable  with  the  Church's  declared  "  prescrip- 
tive rights."— Two  alternatives.— Proof  that  the  ANGLICAN  CHURCH  is  AN 
ENTIRELY  NEW  CHURCH.— Created  by  acts  of  Parliament— Its  title.— 
"  The  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  by  LAW  established,"  not  by  Christ  and 
his  Apostles. — King's  coronation  oath. — Preface  to  Ordination,  etc.,  in  the  Anglican 
and  American  Liturgies. — Conclusion. 


CONTENTS.  XXUl 

CHAPTEE  VIII. 

THE  ANGLO-ENGLISH  REFORMATION,  AFTER  THE  DEATH  OF   HENRY  VIII., 
A.D.   1547,  UNDER  EDWARD  VI.,  MARY,  AND  ELIZABETH. 

SECTION  I. — pp.  393-400. 

Under  Henry  VIII.  nothing  Protestant  worthy  the  name. — I.,  Edward  VI. — Ruling 
motive  of  the  Guardians  of,  (the  king  being  now  but  ten  years  of  age)  in  promot- 
ing the  Reformation,  the  security  of  the  monastic  estates  now  in  their  possession. — 
A  reformation  achieved,  not,  as  is  alleged,  "  by  the  common  consent  of  the  people ;" 
not  by  the  conversion  of  Romanists  to  the  Protestant  faith,  but  by  the  compulsory 
Acts  of  Parliament. — Protestant  principles  subordinate. — "  The  Book  of  Common 
Prayer"  under  Henry  and  Edward. — Its  near  identity  with  the  Romish  Mass  Book. 
— Judgment  of  the  Papists  on. — Statements  of  the  "  Commissioners"  under  Edward 
and  Elizabeth. — Also,  the  Romish  author  of  Horae  Bibliae. — LordChatham,  etc. — 
Proof  of  the  above. — Parliamentary  Acts, — 1 :  a.d.  1531,  which  abrogated  the  papal 
supremacy,  etc. ;  2  :  27ih  year  of  Henry,  a.d.  1535,  and  31st  ditto,  a.d.  1539,  confis- 
cating the  monastic  estates ;  3:  27th  Henry  VIII.,  chap.  20,  and  2d  and  3d  Ed- 
ward VI.,  chap.  13,  compelling  the  payment  of  lay  tithes;  4:  1st  Edward  VI., 
chap.  1,  A.D.  1547,  coercing  the  people,  Romish  and  Dissenters,  into  the  sheep-fold  ; 
5  :  1st  Edward  VI.  chap.  1,  a.d.  1547,  and  2d  Edward  VI.,  coercing  the  adoption 
and  use  of  the  Prayer-Book,  etc. — High  pretensions  of  '•  the  Protestant  Church  of 
England,"  etc. — The  only  true  Church,  etc. — The  Prayer-Book  composed  by  aid  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  for  "  the  honor  of  God"  !  Surely,  then,  Parliament  could 
never  turn  its  back  upon  such  a  Church  and  Prayer-Book  ! 


SECTION  II. — pp.  400-403. 

II. — Mary,  a  Romanist. — Conduct  of  Parliament  on  her  accession. — Renounce  the 
Protestant  Church  and  Prayer-Book,  acknowledge  themselves  schismatics,  and 
pledge  their  return  to  the  bosom  of  Holy  Mother,  on  condition  of  their  being 
permitted  to  retain  the  monastic  estates.  (See  their  petition  to  the  queen.  Appen- 
dix — .) — The  pope  grants  absolution. — Popery  again  restored. — But  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer,  the  most  distinguished  of  the  English  reformers. — Held  in  high 
repute  as  such. — Our  duty. — His  true  character. — His  end. 


SECTION  III. — pp.  403-406. 

III.  Elizabeth. — She  also  a  Romanist. — Surely,  then,  Parliament  continues  to  adhere  to 
the  Romish  Faith  ? — Not  so. — The  Monastic  Estates  are  jeoparded  by  the  illegiti- 
macy of  the  Queen ! — And,  all  again,  by  Acts  of  Parliament,  become  Protes- 
tant !! ! — Act  1st  of  Elizabeth,  chap.  1,  restored  to  her  the  same  title  held  by 
Henry  and  Edward  (and  which  is  retained  to  this  day),  and  secured  to  the  Aris- 
tocracy the  Monastic  Estates,  clauses  17,  18,  19,  enacting  the  severest  penalties 
against  all  malcontents. — The  '■Commission." — Second  Act,  1st  Elizabeth,  chap. 


XXIV  CONTENTS. 

2,  restored  the  Prayer-Book,  designed  more  especially  for  the  benefit  of  Ronnanists 
enforced  by  the  severest  penalties. — Another  Act,  35th  Elizabeth,  chap.  1,  en- 
titled, "  An  Act  to  retain  the  Queen's  subjects  in  their  due  obedience,"  etc.,  de- 
signed for  the  benefit  of  Dissenters. — Enforced  by  the  gentle  penalties  of  banish- 
ment for  life,  and  death ! — These  horrid  enactments  refmained  in  full  force  until 
the  time  of  James  II.,  and  for  attempting  to  mitigate  which,  he  lost  to  himself  and 
his  posterity  for  ever,  the  British  throne  ! — Partially  modified  under  William  and 
Mary. — Less  rigidly  enforced  now. — Conclusion. — Present  aspect  of  "  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England  as  by  Law  Established." 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE  ALLEGED  SUCCESSION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  EPISCOPAL  CHUECII. 

SECTION  I. — pp.  407,  408. 

Reference  to  the  proofs  of  its  derivation  from  the  Ecclesiastico-political  lay  supremacy, 
spiritual  and  temporal,  of  the  Anglo-English  crown. — Four  conditions,  as  the  only 
methods  of  escape  therefrom,  and  of  the  refutation  of  the  charge  of  its  Romish 
origin,  etc. 


CHAPTER  X. 

OF  THE  FRATERNAL  CHARACTER  OR  PERFECT  EQUALITY  OF  THE 
OFFICE  AND  FUNCTIONS  OF  ELDERS  OR  PRESBYTERS,  AND 
BISHOPS. 

SECTION  I. — ^i^p.  409-412. 

Importance  of  a  further  exhibit  of  the  subject  of  this  Chapter,  in  contrast  with  the  pre- 
latical  theory. — Proofs  of  the  parity  or  perfect  equality  of  the  ordinary  ministry  of 
divine  appointment,  as  derived,  1st :  From  the-  interchangeable  use  of  the  titles. 
Elder  and  Bishop. — 2d :  From  the  declarations  of  prelatists  themselves. — Also 
from  the  writings  of  the  purest  ages  of  antiquity. — The  terms  Ordo,  Gradus,  Offici- 
um,  defined. — Circumstances  which  originated  a  diversity  in  ecclesiastical  func- 
tions,— Elfric,  Ambrose,  etc. 


SECTION   II. — pp.   412-418. 

Extracts  from  the  Fathers. — Clem.  Romanus,  Ignatius,  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Tertul 
lian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Firmilian,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  Jerome. 

SECTION  III. — pp.   418-420. 

Subiect  continued. IV.  The  same  corroborated  by  the  testimony  of  all  the  Christian 

Churches  in  the  world. — The  African,  Greek,  Western  or  Roman,  Lutheran,  Ger- 
man Reformed,  French,  Waldensian,  Scotch,  and  Dissenting. 


CONTENTS.  •aacv 

SECTION  IV. — pp.  420-422. 

Subject  continued. — ^V.  Additional  testimony  from  the  greatest  divines  of  modern 
times,  since  the  period  of  the  Continental  and  Anglican  Reformations. — Wickiiffe, 
Erasmus,  Cranmer,  Calvin,  Beza,  Melancthon,  Blondell,  M.  Flaccius  lUyricus, 
Claude,  Bochart,  Grotius,  Vitringei,  Mosheim,  Suicer,  Schleusner,  Archbishop 
Usher,  etc. 


SECTION  V. — pp.  423-430. 

Subject  continued. — VI.  Testimony  of  the  greatest  divines  of  modern  times,  since  the 
Continental  and  Anglican  Reformations. — Do.  of  the  Anglican  Reformers  them- 
selves.— Sanctioned  by  royal  authority. — Bishop  Burnet. — Rev.  A.  B.  Chapin's 
attempt  to  escape  therefrom. — Failure  of. — Conclusion. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

ON  THE   CATHOLIC   CHUKCH   OF   CHRIST. 

SECTION  I. — pp.  431-440. 

Introductory. — The  prelatical  theory,  "  nulla  ecclcsia  sine  episcopo^ — ^Marks  or  notes  by 
which  the  Church  Catholic  is  to  be  known :  namely,  Apostolicity,  Catholicitj'', 
Unity,  Sanctity,  Discipline. — Prelatists  not  agreed  eis  to  what  constitutes  these  notes, 
'  their  differences  varying  from  four  to  four  hundred. — Valentia,  Druido,  Sanders, 
Pisteria,  Bellarmine,  Bossius,  etc. — So  also  in  regard  to  authorities. — Canus,  Bannes, 
Suares,  Duvall,  Conink,  Arriaga,  Usamburtius,  Gillius,  Amicus,  Rhodius,  etc.,  of  the 
Romanists. — Palmer,  Field,  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  Dr.  Sherlock,  Dr.  Freeman, 
Dr.  Payne,  the  Homilies,  etc.,  of  the  Protestants. — The  two  notes,  Apostolicity  and 
Catholicity,  applied  to  the  Roman,  and  the  Anglican  and  American  Episcopal 
Churches. 


SECTION  II. — ^pp.  440-454. 

Subject  continued. — The  three  "  notes,"  namely.  Unity,  Sanctity,  and  Discipline,  ap- 
plied to  the  Roman,  the  Anglican,  and  the  American  Episcopal  Churches. — Fal- 
lacy of. — On  the  last  note,  Ellesby's  caution,  Bingham's  Origines  Ecclesiastica  and 
Bishop  Burgess,  of  Maine,  compared  with  Dr.  Aydelott  and  Dr.  F.  L.  Hawks,  etc. 


SECTION  in. — pp.  454-468. 

Conclusion. — "The  Holy  Catholic  Church" — How  known?  Where  found?  Scrip- 
turally  defined. — Line  of  designation  between  the  True  and  the  False  Church.^ 
Adopted  by  Luther.— The  Continental  Reformers.— The  XlXth  of  the  XXXIX 


XXVI  CONTENTS. 

Articles  of  the  Church  of  England. — Cranmer,  Hooker,  Bishops  Sanderson  and  Cosin, 
"  Statement  of  the  Distinctive  Principles  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Society  for 
the  Promotion  of  Evangelical  Knowledge,"  Bishops  Meade,  Mcllvaine,  Lee,  Bur- 
gess, etc..  Dr.  Stone,  etc.,  etc. — Incongruity  of  their  statements  with  the  admitted 
theory  of  Prelacy,  etc. — Application  of  the  above  marks  or  notes  of "'  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church,"  to  the  Anti-Prelatical  theory  of — I.  Aposlolicity — In  the  sense  of 
an  Unbroken  Succession — Not,  however,  in  a  Genealogical  line  of  Persons,  but 
of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Apostolic  Doctrine^  etc. — Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Gre- 
gory Nazian.,  Ambrose,  etc.,  on. — II.  Catholicity. — Preliminaries. — Novatians — 
Waddington  on. — Donatists — Waddington  on. — Pauliceans — Gibbon  on. —  Waldenses. 
— Reinerius  Sacchoon. — Inference. — III.  Unity. — The  Harmony  in  Doctrine,  Polity 
etc.,  of  Anti-Peelatists,  contrasted  with  the  discordant  systems  of  Prelacy. — 
IV.  Sanctity. — See  Standards  of  all  Evangelical  Churches. — V.  Discipline. — See 
Standards  of  all  Evangelical  Churches. 


APPENDICES. 

APPENDIX  A. — ^pp.  469-477. 

Antichristianism,  as  scripturally  viewed  in  the  aspect  of  its  rise,  forms  of  development 
character  and  results. 


APPENDIX  B. — ^pp.  478-483. 

On  the  charge  brought  by  Prelatists  against  Calvin,  that  he  preferred  Episcopal  Ordiria  ■ 
tion,  and  sought  after  it,  but  could  not  obtain  it,  etc. 


APPENDIX  .c. — ^pp.  483-487. 

On  the  title  "  Elders" — a  distinction  in  their  respective  functions. 


APPENDIX  D. — ^pp.  487-488. 

Waldenses. 


APPENDIX  E. — pp.  488-492. 

Pope  Joan. 


APPENDIX  F. — pp.  492-496. 


The  Petition  of  the  Protestant  Parliament  of  England  on  the  death  of  Edward  VI.  to 
Queen  Mary,  for  the  reconciliation  of  the  Kingdom  to  the  See  of  Rome ;  and  the 
counter  petition  of  the  same  Parliament  to  Elizabeth,  on  the  death  of  Mary,  for  the 
restoration  of  Protestantism. 


TO  THE  READER/- 


Another  controversial  treatise  on  the  long-litigated  question  of  Ministe- 
rial Parity  and  Prelacy ! 

Even  so.  But,  paradoxical  as  it  may  seem,  my  only  design  in  preparing 
and  offering  this  work  to  the  Christian  pubhc  is,  the  contribution  of  a 
humble  endeavor,  in  reliance  upon  the  blessing  of  God,  to  restore  the 
Church  of  Christ,  so  long  torn  piece-meal  by  religious  faction,  to  that 
"  UNITY  OF  THE  FAITH  AND  THE  BOND  OF  PEACE,"  for  whicli  Christ  prayed 
and  the  apostles  labored.*  The  entire  frame-work  of  the  treatise,  however 
roughl}'^  hewn  the  materials,  claims  to  be  erected  on  the  hypothesis  of  the 
utter  futility  of  all  attempts  to  wipe  out  the  deep  stain  of  schism — so  long 
the  sin  and  the  reproach  of  the  Church — till  Protestant  controvertists, 
through  the  influence  of  "  the  Spirit  of  truth'"  "  working  in  them  mighti- 
ly,"^ are  made  "  willing"*  to  exchange  mere  sectarian  predilections  for  a  re- 
turn to  a  scriptural  and  primitive  catholicity. 

Nor  can  the  Church  of  Christ,  if  she  would,  evade  participation  in  the 
questions  involved  in  these  discussions.  Surely,  nothing  but  that  spirit  of 
time-serving  expediency  which  results  from  false  notions  of  Christian  chari- 
ty, can  betray  any  who  "  hold  the  Head"*  in  the  articles  of  the  "  one  Lord, 
one  faith,  and  one  baptism"^  of  the  New  Testament,  whether  of  the  clergy 
or  laity,  into  indifference  and  opposition  to,  a  candid  and  faithful  exhibit  of 
the  claims  to  our  belief  and  adoption,  of  one  of  the  above  named  systems, 
in  preference  to  the  other.  In  this  connection  the  writer,  in  the  words  of 
one  "  whose  praise  is  in  all  the  churches" — Rev.  Dr.  Dickinson — would 
express  it  as  his  conviction  that,  "  if  there  be  any  ground  for  surprise,  it  is 
because  Presbyterians  so  seldom  obtrude  the  claims   of  their  church  on 

(1)  Compare  Eph.  4  :  4,  13,  with  John,  chap.  17,  and  1  Cor.  3  and  12.  (2)  1  John  4  :  6.  (3)  Col.  1  : 
29.     (4)  Psalm  110  :  3.     (5)  Col.  2  :  19.     (6)  Eph.  4  :  6. 

♦  The  following  address  is  designed  to  sustain  a  relation  to  the  Treatise,  analogous  to 
that  of  a  vestibule  to  an  edifice.  The  reader  will  find  it  to  his  advantage,  as  it  will  be 
but  an  act  of  justice  to  the  writer,  to  pass  through  it,  on  his  way  to  that. 


XXVlll  TO  THE  READER. 

public  attention."*  This  has  been  to  me,  a  "  ground  of  surprise."  As 
that  writer  sa3's,  from  "  their  accustomed  silence" — in  the  advocacy  of  their 
claims  against  the  advocates  of  prelacy — "  it  has  been  supposed  that  they 
themselves  regard  their  ecclesiastical  polity  as  not  scripturally  defensible."! 
1  know  this  to  be  so.  And,  that  Episcopalians,  "  the  validity  of  whose 
ordinances  she  admits,"J  taking  advantage  of  this  her  silence  and  truly 
Catholic  concession,  as  he  says,  "  have  endeavored  to  drain  her  ministry, 
and  draw  from  hor  communion. "§  I  am  not  therefore  surprised  that,  with 
these  facts  before  him,  this  reverend  gentleman  should  have  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  "  perhaps  she" — the  Presbyterian  Church — "  has  erred  on 
the  score  of  liberality."!  I  think  so.  And  as  he  also  says,  "  The  Church 
of  Christ  is  necessarily  antagonistic  (these  italics  are  ours)  to  all  the  errors 
and  vices  of  the  world  ;"  "  and  also  to  intimate  distinctly  that  whenever  it 
is  necessary,  we  may  enter  the  list  of  controversy,  and  rebuke  the  arrogance 
of  those  worshipers  of  Sect  who  sometimes  overween,  and  in  their  moments 
of  hallucination,  exclaim,  The  temple  of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord, 
are  WE,^''^  etc  :  I  think,  that  that  necessity  now  exists.  The  time,  in  my 
view,  has  long  since  gone  by,  when  it  is  sufficient  to  commit  fundamental 
truth  to  the  guardianship  of  mere  conservatism.  How,  I  ask,  can  this  be 
a  "  contending  earnestly  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  against 
the  insidious  blandishments  and  the  vigilant,  unremitting,  and  hostile  attacks 
of  insidious  "  error,  heresy,  and  schism"  ?  No.  If  the  Christian  Church 
is  "  necessarily  antagonistic,"  Christianity,  in  the  true  Protestant  evangelical 
sense,  is  necessarily  aygrossive.  And,  Christian  charity  cannot  fail  to  de- 
generate into  a  criminal  supineness  to  essential  truth,  when,  from  a  fear  of 
giving  offense,  it  is  seen  bowing  obsequiously  at  the  shrine  of  popular  error. 
Such  forget  that,  "  if  Satan,"  the  rebel  leader  of  antichristianism,  "  is  trans- 
formed into  an  angel  of  light,  therefore  it  is  no  great  thing  if  his  ministers 
(transforming  themselves  into  the  apostles  of  Christ,)  also  be  trans- 
formed as  the  ministers  of  righteousness."' 

I  speak  then  as  unto  wise  men  when  I  express  it  as  my  opinion  that,  in 
this  day — if  at  any  period  included  in  the  Pauline  prediction  regarding  the 
"  perilous  times""  of  the  Church — in  this  day  it  is  true,  "  that  men  will  not 
«:'ndure  sound  doctrine,  but  after  their  own  lusts  shall  they  heap  to  them- 
selves teacheis,  having  itching  ears."'  In  proof  of  this,  I  have  but  to  ad- 
vert to  the  fact,  that  nothing  is  more  perilous  to  one's  reputation  or  hopes, 

(1)  2  Cor.  11  :  13-15.      ('3)  2  Tim.  3  i  1.     (3)  2  Tim.  4  :  3. 
*  "  The  Church  of  Christ.     A  Discourse  by  Rev.  Richard  W.  Dickinson,  D.D.,  New 
York  :  Charles  Scribner.  18.51."  p.  21.     A  copy  of  this  very  able  and  well-timed  Dis- 
course should  be  in  the  hands  of  every  Presbyterian  family  in  the  Church. 

t  lb.,  p.  21.  t  lb.,  p.  3.3.  §  lb.,  p.  33.  ||  lb.,  p.  33.         1[  lb.,  p.  30. 


TO   THE   READfiB.  XXIX 

than  to  insinuate  that,  in  order  to  "  deceive,  if  it  be  possible,  the  very- 
elect,"'  error,  heresy,  and  schism  may,  not  only,  but  must,  so  nearly  resem- 
ble truthy  as  scarcely  to  be  discernible  from  it.  I  think  it  may  in  truth  be 
said  that  we  have  already  reached  the  point  where  error,  how  soul-ruin- 
ous soever  in  its  tendency,  if  it  be  but  deeply  imbedded  beneath  a  fair 
show  outwardly  of  great  zeal  for  Protestant  evangelic  truth,  it  is  denounced 
as  worse  than  sacrilegious,  and  as  an  outrage  against  all  the  laws  of  Chris- 
tian charity,  to  assail  it.  '  Why  not  let  other  denominations  alone  ?  This 
controversy  tends  but  to  separate  very  friends,'  etc.  Tliese  and  the  like 
sentiments  are  the  weapons  with  which  an  artful  ^se2(c?o-Pr6testant  evangel- 
ism seeks  to  cajole  the  "  watchmen"  on  the  ramparts  of  Zion  into  a  timid 
and  inglorious  silence.  Its  language  is,  '  only  keep  still — continue  your 
wisely  begun  poUcy  not  to  "obtrude  the  claims  of  the  Church,"  Presbyte- 
rian, "  on  public  attention,"  and,  in  a  few  years,  if  we  fail  to  bring  your 
fathers  into  the  pale  of  the  one  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church,  we 
shall  have  their  children.  Yes.  Our  Protestant  name,  coupled  with  our 
evangelical  preaching,  writing,  etc.,  and  our  imposing  architectural  and 
liturgical  appliances,  together  with  the  connections,  social,  matrimonial,  and 
commercial,  already  formed  and  continually  forming  between  us  and  them, 
furnish  the  everyday  evidence  that  they  are  rapidly  approximating  nearer 
and  nearer  towards  us.' 

Whether  this  representation  will  meet  with  less  of  sympathy  than  of 
incredulity,  I  know  not.  The  picture  I  have  here  drawn,  in  its  aspect 
towards  Presbyterianism,  may  be  deemed  overwrought.  All  I  ask  is,  let 
not  a  consciousness  of  present  denominational  strength  in  the  department 
of  letters,  numbers,  and  resources,  when  compared  Avith  others,  spurn  it  as 
visionary.  While  I  rejoice  to  believe  that  Presbyterianism  throughout 
Christendom,  blessed  with  the  presence  of  "  the  Lord  God  and  his 
Spirit,"  and  actuated  by  a  holy  zeal  for  the  truth  and  the  salvation  of  souls, 
has  nothing  to  fear,  but  every  thing  to  hope ;  I  would  not  forget  that  the 
name  of  her  antagonistic  agents  is  "  Legion,"  and  that,  together,  they 
comprehend  at  least  eleven-twelfths  of  all  who  bear  the  Christian  name. 
Nor  would  I  above  all  forget,  that  while  she  has  been,  and  is  now,  to  some 
extent  at  least,  engaged  in  a  warfare  against  the  strongholds  of  Romanism 
proper,  as  also  some  of  the  higher  forms  of  development  of  Prelacy  bear- 
ing the  Protestant  name,  yet  that  she  has,  so  to  speak,  entirely  overlooked 
another,  and  that  the  very  form  in  which,  in  ray  view,  she  has  the  most  to 
fear — I  mean,  Prelacy  as  put  forth  under  its  so-called  Loio  Church  Evan- 
gelical guise.  In  this  form  it  is,  I  contend,  so  far  stripped  of  its  repulsive 
features,  as  admii^ably  to  adapt  it  to  all  the  purposes  of  successful  proselyt- 

(1)  Matt.  24  :  U. 


XXX  TO  THE  READER. 

ism — in  other  words,  "  to  drain  tlie  ministry,  and  draw  from  the  commu- 
nion" of  "  other  denominations,"  May  I  not  then  hope  for  the  indulgence 
of  all  concerned,  if  I  employ  my  pen — as  I  claim  in  the  providence  of 
God  to  have  been  appointed — in  giving  at  least  the  well-meant  admonition, 
"  he  that  thinketh  he  standeth,  let  him  take  heed  lest  he  fall  ?"'  "  Let  not 
bim  that  putteth  on  his  armor,  boast  as  he  that  putteth  it  off."*  "  The 
race  is  not  to  tlie  swift,  nor  the  battle  to  the  strong."'  "  When  we  shall 
say,  peace,  peace,  lo,  sudden  destruction  cometh."*  In  conclusion  on  this 
subject  I  have  only  further  to  add,  that  during  the  last  two  years,  having 
bad  more  ample  opportunity  to  witness  the  influence  of  prelacy  in  its 
above-named  diluted  form  on  the  minds  of  those  "  outside"  the  pale  of 
"  the  Church,"  I  have  looked  with  the  deepest  concern  on  its  tendency  to 
neutralize  the  attachments  of  many  to  the  faith  of  the  Church  of  their  fore- 
fathers. To  all  such,  then,  I  say,  "  Am  I  become  your  enemy,  because  I 
tell  you  the  truth  ?" 

While,  then,  it  will  be  well  for  the  self-confident  among  Presbyterians  to 
compare  Geneva  as  she  is  with  Geneva  as  she  was  ;  as  a  check  to  the  ar- 
rogant triumphs  of  Protestant  prelatists,  Tractarian,  Hobartian,  and  the 
so-called  Low  Church,  over  her  downfall,  I  Avould  remind  them  of  their  de- 
parture, since  the  time  of  Archbishop  Laud — a  period  of  near  two  hundred 
years — -from  the  only  true  platform,  Episcopal,  of  "  The  Church  of  En- 
gland as  by  Law  Established"  under  the  auspices  of  the  first  Anglican 
Reformers. 

The  reader,  doubtless,  will  be  not  a  little  startled  at  this  announcement. 
The  time,  however,  has  arrived  when  some  one  must  speak  out  on  this  sub- 
ject. The  facts  here  alluded  to  are  matters  of  historic  record.  I  have 
spoken  of  tlie  deep  stain  of  schism,  so  long  the  sin  and  reproach  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  On  this  subject  I  need  not  say  that  the  history  of 
schism  and  heresy  is  coeval  with  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church,  and, 
as  of  the  period  from  the  apostles's  time  down  to  the  Reformation,  so,  from 
that  time  to  the  present.  And  the  measure  of  responsibility  of  those  who, 
in  every  period  and  in  whatever  w^ay,  have  originated  them,  is  the  magni- 
tude of  the  sin  involved — that  of  dividing  and  rending  the  Church  of 
Christ,  which  is  "  His  body,"'  and  by  which  "  the  name  of  God  and  his 
doctrine  are  blasphemed."*  Nor  let  any  who  is  implicated  in  these  pre- 
mises lay  "  the  flattering  unction  to  his  soul,"  as  though  the  fact  of  the 
divine  purpose  that  "  there  must  he  heresies  among  you,"  nullified  the  re- 
sponsibility of  which  I  here  speak.  The  existence  of  schisms  and  heresies 
in  the  Church,  are  the  divinely-ordained  tests  of  the  integrity  of  "  the 
faithful  in  Christ   Jesus"  all  of  whom  are  called,  not  to  war,  but  "  to 

(1)  1  Cor.  10  :  12.  (2)  1  Kings  20  :  11.  (3)  Eccl.  9  :  11.  (4)  1  ThosR.  5  :  3.  (o)  Eph.  1  :  C3. 
(0)  1  Tim.  6:1. 


TO   THE   READER.  XXXI 

peace.'"  It  is  "  that  they  which  are  approved  may  be  made  inanifest 
among  you."' 

And  who  are  these  ?  A  point  this,  in  comparison  with  which  every  other 
sinks  into  absolute  insignificance.  In  the  contest  for  truth  which  now 
presses  upon  the  Church,  every  other  must  finally  merge  into  this.  What 
Christian  mind,  I  ask,  does  not  revolt  at  the  thought  of  being  chargeable, 
at  the  Great  Day,  with  .the  sins  of  schism  and  heresy  ?  And  yet — in  ad- 
dition to  what  I  have  already  said  on  this  subject — taking  into  the  ac- 
count those  various  branches  bearing  the  Christian  name  and  claiming  to 
constitute  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ  on  the  one  hand ;  and  the  always 
commendable  disposition  to  yield  obedience  to  the  law  of  Christian  charity 
toward  all  on  the  other  ;  the  danger  is,  that  even  such  minds,  from  their 
eagerness  to  escape  implication  in  these  premises  in  regard  to  themselves 
and  also  as  a  shield  to  others,  may  be  seduced  into  that  spirit  of  indiffer- 
ence to  the  subject,  as  a  whole,  as  to  involve  them  in  the  meshes  of  some  fatal 
error.  Our  design  in  the  following  pages  is  to  show,  that,  involved  in  the 
questions  at  issue  between  the  advocates  of  Parity  and  Prelacy,  are  prin- 
ciples which  are  fundamental  to  truth,  and  that  the  one  system  or  the 
other  must  be  "false." 

Let  me  explain.  Scripturally,  the  import  of  the  terra  schism  (from  the 
Gr.  axiofxa)  signifies  rvpture,  or  division.  Heresy  (from  the  Gr.  a'igeaig), 
a  choice,  in  the  sense  of  "  an  arbitrary  adoption,  in  matters  of  faith,  of  opi- 
nions at  variance  with  the  doctrines  delivered  by  Christ  and  his  apostles."* 
And,  though  not  an  invariable  result,  yet,  generally,  the  former,  Schism,  is 
the  parent  of  the  latter.  Heresy.  Hence,  says  St.  Jerome,  "  There  is  no 
schism  which  does  not  tend  to  generate  some  heresy.  "I  Twin  foes  to  the 
truth  and  the  peace  of  the  Church,  they  together  constitute  the  evil 
genii  whence  have  sprung  all  those  "  wars  and  fightings"*  which,  from  the 
period  of  the  Corinthian  schisms  in  apostolic  times  to  the  present  day, 
have  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  Church,  secured  to  heresy  a  predominancy 
over  truth,  and  drenched  the  earth  with  Christian  blood ! 

And  all  this,  despite  the  Pauline  disquisition  concerning  spiritual  gifts 
and  their  harmonious  exercise  as  illustrated  by  the  diversified  yet  united 
action  of  the  *'  many  members  of  the  one  body"  human,  furnished  bj'^  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  the  Church  expressly  to  teach  that,  "  whether  we  be  Jews 
or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free,"  as  "  bj/  one  Spirit  we  are  all 
baptized  into  one  body,"  so, — in  accordance  with  the   lesson  taught  in  the 

(1)  1  Cor.  7  :  15.     (2)  1st  Cor.  12  :  19.  (3)  James  3  :  1. 
*  Thecphilus  Anglicana,  etc.,  by  Christopher  Wordsworth,  D.D.,  London,  1843,  p.  29. 
t  S.  Hieron.  in  Tit.  c.  3. 


XXXU  TO  THE   HEADER. 

beautifully  appropriate  figure,  as  above, — "  there  should  be  no  schism  ia 
the  body.'" 

To  return  then  to  our  previous  statement,  that  heresy,  though  not  in- 
variably, yet  is  generally,  the  legitimate  offspring  of  schism  ;  it  follows,  in 
logical  sequence,  that  there  is  a  correspondence  between  the  heresy,  doc- 
tiinally,  and  the  nature  of  the  schism  whence  it  springs. 

Now,  both  the  schisms  in  the  Corinthian  Church  (Isl  Cor.,  chapters  3 
and  12)  regarded  external  things — the  fellowship  or  communion,  and  the 
ministry  of  the  Church,  and  especially  in  regard  to  the  latter — the  minis- 
try— it  consisted  in  the  "  having  men's  persons  in  admiration. "°  "  One 
said,  I  am  of  Paul ;  and  another,  I  am  of  Apollos,'"  etc.  The  prompti- 
tude and  earnestness  of  the  apostle  in  his  attempt  to  arrest  the  progress  of 
this  schism,  is  an  evidence  of  his  prophetic  foresight  of  the  heresy  which 
he  knew,  from  its  very  nature,  it  was  calculated  to  engender,  to  wit :  that 
of  setting  up  claims  of  superiority,  in  functions  and  dignity,  in  behalf  of 
one  over  the  other.  To  strike,  therefore,  at  the  root  of  this  incipient 
evil — a  love  of  "  the  pre-eminence" — the  apostle  says  of  them,  "  Who 
then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  ApoUos,  but  ministers  by  whom  ye  believed,  even 
as  the  Lord  gave  to  every  man  ?  I  have  planted,  Apollos  watered,  but 
God  gave  the  increase  ;"  to  which  he  adds,  "  he  that  planteth  and  he  that 
watereth,  are  one."  Sufficient  this,  one  would  suppose,  to  have  forever 
arrested  the  threatening  evil. 

But,  as  already  remarked,  the  ecclesiastical  records  of  the  past,  dating 
even  from  apostolic  times,  evidence  a  reckless  disregard  on  the  part  of  by 
fer  the  larger  portion  of  nominal  Christendom,  to  take  heed  to  the  lessons 
of  instruction,  admonition,  and  solemn  warning  on  this  subject,  with  which 
the  New  Testament  abounds.  In  addition  to  the  above,  and  long  before 
the  death  of  the  last  apostle,  John,  both  the  schism  and  its  offspring, 
heresy,  appeared  in  the  Church,  in  the  person  of  Diotrephes.  Of  him, 
says  that  apostle,  first,  "  he  loveth  to  have  the  'pre-eminence."*^  Now, 
wlierefore  this  ?  For,  even  admitting  (which  we  do  not)  that  the  apostles 
were  to  have  successors,  and  that  Diotrephes  was  one  of  them,  Christ,  in 
his  address  to  "  the  twelve,"  had  said,  "  all  ye  are  brethren,"  a  declaration 
sufficiently  adverse  to  the  idea  of  any  "  pre-eminence"  or  piimacy  of  one 
'among  them  over  the  other.  But  that  he  was  a  presbyter  only  of  the 
church  to  which  the  apostle  John  directed  this  epistle,  may  be  gathered 
from  the  contrast  between  them  as  contained  in  the  words,  "  Wherefore,  if 
I  come,  I  will  remember  his  deeds  which  he  doeth,"^  etc.,  words  clearly 
implying  the  superior  authority  of  John  as  an  apostle,  over  this  dis- 
ci) 1  Cor.  12  :  25.     (2)  Jude,  v.  16.     (3)  I  Cor.  3  :  4.     (4)  3  John,  v.  9.     (5)  3  John,  v.  10. 


TO   THE   HEADER.  XXXlll 

turber  of  the  Church's  peace.  Not  that  this  admitted  superiority  of  Jolin 
over  him  conflicts  with  the  principle  of  parity  for  which  we  contend.  That 
can  only  be  made  to  appear  by  showing  that  both  the  apostolate  and  pres- 
byterate  were  to  be  continued  in  the  Church  as  the  ordinary  and  perma- 
nent ministry  thereof,  a  work  which,  it  is  the  design  of  these  pages  to 
demonstrate,  never  has  been  and  never  can  be  done.  None  deny  that, 
at  least  during  the  New  Testament  age,  the  elders,  7rp£(7/3f  repoi,  of  the 
Church,  of  which  this  Diotrephes  was  one,  whatever  were  their  functions, 
stood  on  the  platform  of  equality.  Clearly,  then,  Diotrephes's  assumption 
of  "  the  pre-einineiKe"  was  schismatical,  a  sin,  as  we  have  said,  against  the 
externals  of  the  Church.  But,  second.  The  apostle  adds,  "  he  receiveth  us 
not.'"  The  Apostle  John,  etc.,  cast  out  of  the  Church  by  Diotrephes! 
On  what  grounds  ?  None  other  can  be  assigned  than  the  assumption  of 
powers  or  functions  ministerial,  transcending  those  of  the  excommunicated  ! 
Hence  the  heresy  of  Diotrephes,  doctrinally. 

It  follows  that,  in  w^hatever  ecclesiastical  systems*  this  principle  is 
found,  it  is  germain  to  the  arrogant,  exclusive,  denunciatory,  unchurching, 
or  in  other  words,  schismatical  and  heretical  system  of  which  that  of 
Diotrephes  is  the  New  Testament  type.  Yes.  Like  him,  actuated  by  a 
love  of  "  the  pre-eminence,"  it  not  only  "  casts  out  of  the  Church"  those 
who  refuse  unconditional  submission  to  its  dogmas,  but  "  with  malicious 
words  prates"  against  those  who  claim,  at  least,  credentials  equally  valid 
as  the  called  and  sent  of  the  Lord.  In  a  word,  it  is  an  assumed  Chris- 
tianized priesthood  of  "  divers  orders"  with  alleged  sacerdotal  powers  by 
divine  right,  as  the  only  valid  dispensers  of  grace  through  the  sacraments, 
"  shutting  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven"  against  those  who,  disclaiming  such 
vicarial  powers,  are  content  to  stand  upon  what  they  claim  to  constitute  the 
scriptural  and  piimitive  platform  of  equality  or  parity,  in  the  fraternal 
relation  of  "  brethren,"  "  earthly  vessels,"  "  ministers,"  by  whom  sinners 
"  believe,"  and  saints  are  "  edified,"  "  that  the  excellency  of  the  power 
may  be  of  God  and  not  of  them."* 

Now  the  former  of  these  systems  is  what  we  call  Prelacy.  The  latter, 
Parity.  The  difference,  in  a  doctrinal  aspect,  is  that  of  the  ministration  of 
the  law,  and   that  of  the   Spirit.^     The   one  is  the  religion  of  sense  or  of 

(1)  2  Cor.  4  :  7.  (2)  2  Cor.  3. 
*  I  say,  systems.  For  while,  under  certain  circumstances,  schism,  as  I  have  remarked, 
may  exist  separate  from  heresy  (as  in  the  instance  recorded  1  Cor.  chap.  3),  yet,  when 
it  partakes  of  the  character  of  that  narrated  in  1  Cor.  chap.  12,  resulting,  as  did  that,  in 
the  exclusion  of  others,  clerics  and  laics,  from  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  it  inevitably  in- 
volves heresy,  if  that  he  heresy,  which  consists  in  arrogating  powers  or  functions  by 
divine  right,  which  do  not  belong  to  it.  This  double  sin,  I  repeat,  under  such  circum- 
stances, cannot  be  separated. 


XXxiv  TO   THE   HEADER. 

nuture,  because  it  is  adapted  to  the  requirements  of  the  natural  man,  and 
leads  to  the  observance  of  and  to  trust  in,  the  efficacy  of  mere  ceremonial 
observances.'  The  other  is  the  religion  of  faith.*  The  one  gendereth  to 
bondat/e.*  The  other  proffers  and  secures  to  the  believer  that  "  liberty 
wherewith  Christ  makes  him  free.* 

In  the  light  then  of  the  instructions  aflforded  by  the  conduct  of  the 
schismatical  and  heretical  Diotrephes,  we  must  beg  to  differ  from,  at  least, 
the  prelatical  interpretation  of  the  following  passage  from  Jerome,  if  not, 
indeed,  from  that  eminent  Father  himself.  "Schism,"  says  he,  "is  a  se- 
paration [axt^ei;  scindit)  from  the  Church  in  the  nature  of  an  Episcopalis 
dissensio  ;*  from  which  prelatists  argue  that,  "  there  being  in  that  age" 
(namely,  the  IVth  and  Vth  centuries)  "no  Christian  congregation  apart 
from,  cr  independent  of,  a  bishop,"f  that  is,  in  the  sense  of  "  Nulla  ecclesia 
sine  Ujjiscopo"^"  without  a  bisliop  there  is  no  church" — therefore,  schism 
consists  in  a  denial  of  the  authority  of,  and  a  refusal  of  submission  to, 
such  a  bishop  or  episcopate.  By  such  an  act  of  separation  from  the 
bishop,  the  ministry  and  sacraments  of  such  become  invalid,  and,  lemain- 
ing  in  that  state  of  schism,  they  are  not  a  church. 

But,  that  the  above  passage  from  Jerome  will  not  warrant  this  prelatical 
interpretation  of  it,  I  submit,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  that  Father  de- 
clares, in  the  most  explicit  terras,  that  "  the  apostle  speaks  of  bishops  in- 
differently as  being  the  same  as  presbyters."  That,  "  with  the  ancients," 
(that  is,  from  the  lid  to  the  IVth  centuries)  "  presbyters  were  tlic  same 
as  bishops."  That  "  before  the  devil  incited  men  to  make  divisions  in  re- 
ligion, and  one  was  led  to  say,  '  lam  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,'  churches 
were  governed  by  the  common  council  of  presbyters."  But,  that  "  after- 
wards— a  usage  gradually  took  place  that  the  chief  care  should  devolve 
upon  one.  Therefore,"  says  he,  "  as  the  presbyters  know  that  it  is  by  the 
custom  of  the  Church  (Ecclesiee.  Consuetudine)  that  they  are  to  be  subject 
to  him  who  is  placed  over  them  ;  so  let  the  bishops  know  that  they  are 
above  presbyters  rather  by  custom  than  by  divine  appointment,  and  that 
the  Church  ought  to  be  ruled  in  common, "f  etc. 

Jerome,  then,  and  the  early  fathers  before  him,  make  the  Episcopal 
regimen  to  have  sprung  up  in  the  Church  after  the  apostolic  age,  (and  it 
matters  not  whether  the  interval  of  the  change  from  the  New  Testament 

(1)  Rom.  2  :  25-29.     (2)  Rom.  5  :  1.     (3)  Gal,  4  :  24.     (4)  Gal.  5  :  1. 

*  S.  Hieron.  in  Tit.  c.  3. 

t  Theoph.  Anglicanus,  etc.,  p.  29.  For  quotations  more  at  large  from  Jerome,  and  also 
those  fathers  who  preceded  hinn,  see  chap.  X.,  sec.  2,  3,  4  and  5  of  this  Treatise. 


.    THE    REAju^-.. 

platform  was  sixty  or  even  forty  years*)  and  place  it  on  the  ground,  not  of 
divine  right,  but  of  custom  only,  while  they  recognize  in  the  broadest  sense 
not  only,  but  advocate  the  Preshyterial  platform  of  the  perfect  equality  of 
bishops  and  presbyters  by  divine  right. 

Hence,  the  diflference  between  prelatists  and  Jerome  regarding  "  the 
nature"  of  schism.  They  make  it  point  against  prelacy  as  though  founded 
in  divine  right.  He,  as  erected  on  the  platform  of  "  the  custom  of  the 
Church,"  or  expediency  only. 

The  writer,  in  opposition  to  both  the  above  theories,  is  compelled  to 
throw  himself  back  upon  the  New  Testament  and  early  post -?i\)Oiio\\c 
ground  of  simple  parity,  and  contends  that  schism  consists  in  contra  societas^ 
contra  disciplinam,  and  contra  caritatem,  or  opposition  to  the  divinely  con- 
stituted order,  discipline,  and  communion  of  the  Church.  While  the  line 
of  separation  from  the  Church  thus  constituted,  is  contra  dogmata,  contra 
fidem,  and  contra  veritatem,\  or  opposition  to  the  teaching,  faith,  and 
truth  of  the  Gospel,  as  set  forth  by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

Having,  in  the  sequel  of  this  Treatise,  furnished  the  reader  with  what  I 
deem  a  sufficiently  extensive  view  of  the  different  phases  of  the  prelatical  the- 
ory, Romish,  Tractarian  and  Hobartian  or  High  Church,  it  is  unnecessary  in 
this  place  to  discuss  the  alleged  distinction  between  Episcopacy  as  essential  to 
the  "being"  and  Episcopacy  as  essential  to  the  " perfection,"  of  "the 
Church,"  as  advocated  by  the  so-called  Low  Church  party.  I  deem  it  as 
worse  than  a  waste  of  time  and  words  to  preach,  and  write,  and  talk  about 
the  alleged  Christian  priesthood  of  "  divers  orders,"  as  to  whether  it  is  of 
the  "essence"  or  of  the  "order"  of  the  Church,  so  long  as  the  advocates 
of  both  theories  claim  to  place  them  equally  on  the  ground  of  a  prescrip- 
tive or  divine  right.  That  both  theories  cannot  occupy  that  ground,  is  un- 
deniable. As,  in  the  course  of  human  progress,  the  past  history  and  pre- 
sent commotions  which  are  "  shaking  the  nations"  of  "  the  earth,"  demon- 
strate the  folly  of  "  mixed  governments  ;"  in  other  words,  "  that  there  are 
no  governments  on  God's  earth  possible  but  democracies  or  absolute  gov- 
ernments ;"J  so,  on  the  other  hand,  of  the  strangely  simultaneous  shakings 
of  "  the  heavens"  ecclesiastical.  These  demonstrate,  that  as  there  is  no 
"  via  media"  between  the  prelatical  theory  as  advocated  by  the  Low  Church 
party,  and  that  of  the  Romanist,  Tractarian,  etc.,  except  in  the  more  modified 

*  See  our  reply  to  Bishop  Mcllvaine  on  this  subject,  Chap.  VI.,  .330-333.  Blondell 
and  Dalleus  affirm  that  it  transpired  in  the  third  century.  See  Chap.  X.,  sec.  4,  of  this 
Treatise. 

t  Theophilus  Anglicana,  etc.,  by  Christopher  Wordsworth,  D.D.,  London,  1842,  p.  29. 

\  Speech  of  Gen.  Shields,  of  Illinois,  on  the  Kossuth  resolution  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  as  reported  in  the  N.  Y.  Sun  of  December  16,  18-51. 


XXXVl  TO  THE   READER. 

form  of  its  development ;  so,  there  is  no  "  via  media"  between  it  and  that 
of  Parity. 

And  yet,  judging  from  the  constantly  reiterated  concessions  of  a7i<i-prelat- 
ists  on  this  subject,  the  opinion  has  widely  obtained,  that  while  the  difference 
between  the  so  called  Low  Church  theory  of  prelacy  and  that  of  its  higher 
forms  of  development  is  absolutely  antijjodal,  it  is  but  the  shadow  of  a 
shade  which  distinguishes  it  from  that  of  parity.  If,  however,  the  testi- 
mony of  one  of  the  most  distinguished  leaders  of  that  party  may  be  taken 
as  authority,  anti-prelatists  may  now,  without  breach  of  charity,  shift  their 
ground.  The  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng,  D.D.,  in  a  sermon  on  "  A  Plea  for 
Union,"  etc.,  speaking  of  what  they  "  suffer,  from  the  multiplied  Protes- 
tant denominations  around  them,  who  renounce,  and  not  unfrequently  revile, 
their  Episcopacy,"  says :  "  There  was  a  time"  when  these  "  afl'ected  to 
distinguish  in  their  warfare  upon  our  Church  between  different  classes  of 
our  clergy ;  assuming  that  some  were  less  attached  to  the  principles  which 
they  opposed,  and  excepting  them  therefore,  from  the  controversy  which 
they  were  waging  with  these."  But,  says  he,  "Let  God  be  praised, — 
that  in  the  points  at  issue  between  us  and  them,  there  is  but  little  variety  of 
judgment,  and  no  readiness  of  concession,  among  any  of  our  ministers,"  etc.* 

Indeed.  How  then  comes  it  to  pass,  that  at  no  period  since  the  Anglican 
Reformation,  have  more  strenuous  efforts  been  put  forth  than  at  the  present 
time,  to  produce  the  impression  of  the  extremely  "  moderate,  comprehen- 
sive, and  charitable  views "  of  the  "  Church  of  England "  and  of  her 
American  daughter,  towards  the  Reformed  Continental  and  more  modern 
non-Episcopal  Churches  ?  The  following  may  serve  as  specimens  : — First, 
the  recent  letter  of  the  present  Archbishop  of  Canterbuiy  (Sumner),  in 
reply  to  a  complaint  of  the  Jesuitical  Gawthorn,  against  the  Bishop  of 
London,  under  the  pretext  of  great  offense  for  his  having  spoken  in  dispar- 
agement of  "  the  orders  of  the  foreign  Protestant  ministers  who  had  lately 
visited  "  England.     It  is  as  follows  :f 

"  [private.] 
"Sir,— You  are  far  too  severe  in  your  censure  of  the  Bishop  of  London, 
though  I  wish  that  his  Lordship  had  explained  himself  more  fully.  But  in  his 
original  letter  to  Lord  Chohnondeloy,  he  expressly  stated  that  they  could  not  by 
law  minister  in  our  churches,  but  that  every  endeavor  would  be  made  to  provide 
places  where  they  might  celebrate  divine  worship  according  to  their  own  form. 
/  hardly  imagine  that  there  are  two  Bishops  on  the  bench,  or  one  clergyman  in 

*  "  A  Plea  for  Union,  a  Sermon,  by  Stephen  H.  Tyng,D.D.,"  p.  16.  This  "  Sermon"  was 
preached  before  the  Special  Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  in  St.  Andrew's  Church,  Philadelphia,  Sept.  6th,  1844,  on  the  occasion 
of  the  election  of  a  new  bishop,  for  which  office  the  author  of  the  sermon  was  a  pro- 
minent candidate. 

t  From  the  Protestant  Churchman  of  October  11,  1851. 


TO  THE   READER.  XXXVU 

fifUii  throughout  our  Church,  who  would  deny  the  validity  of  the  orders  of  these 
clergy  solely  on  account  of  their  wanting  the  impoxition  of  Episcopal  hands; 
and  I  am  sure  that  you  have  misunderstood  tlie  import  of  the  letter  which  occa- 
sioned your  addressing  me,  if  you  suppose  that  it  implied  any  such  sentiment  in 
the  writer's  mind. 

"I  remain,  sir,  your  obedient  and  humble  servant,  J.  B.  Cantuar. 

"VV.  Francis,  Esq."* 

It  would  be  entirely  aside  from  my  present  purpose,  to  exhibit  even  a 
tithe  of  what  has  been  written  on  the  subject-matter  of  this  church-renown- 
ed letter.  Should  there  remain,  however,  a  lingering  doubt  in  any  mind  as 
to  the  import  of  that  part  of  it  which  I  have  put  in  italics,  that  doubt  will 
be  removed  (at  least  so  one  would  very  reasonably  suppose)  by  a  work  re- 
cently put  forth  under  the  title  following  : — "  True  Churchmanship  Vindi- 
cated, or  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  not  Exclusive  ;  by  the  Rev. 
Mason  Gallagher,  Rector  of  Trinity  Church,  Covington,  Kentucky.  1851." 
At  the  close  of  the  volume,  the  author  gives  the  following  summary,  as  the 
result  of  the  arguments  adduced  in  support  of  the  "  position  "  assumed  in 
his  title  page.     He  claims  to  have  proved, 

1.  That  the  compilers  of  the  Articles  intended  that  they  should  comprehend 
Christians  of  all  persuasions. 

2.  That  public  acts  were  passed,  recognizing  the  Church  character  of  non- 
episcopal  communions. 

3.  That  ministers  not  episcopally  ordained  held  livings  in  the  Church  of  En- 
gland for  more  than  one  hundred  years  after  the  Reformation. 

4.  That  the  Ordinal  cannot  be  exclusive  in  its  meaning,  as  such  was  not  the 
view  of  its  framers. 

5.  That  all  the  eminent  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  with  but  two  exceptions, 
were  of  the  same  opinion — as  were  also  the  great  body  of  the  standard  divines  of 
the  Church  of  England,  f 

One  writer,  in  speaking  of  it,  says : 

"  The  object  of  this  work  is  to  show  by  extracts  from  the  writings  of  over  one 
hundred  of  the  leading  divines  and  laymen  of  the  Episcopal  Churches  in  England 
and  the  United  States,  from  the  Reformation  downwards,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Invalidity  of  non-Episcopal  orders  has  been  rejected  by  the  great  body  of 
standard  Episcopal  writers.  It  is  also  shown  that  the  exclusive  view  was  intro- 
duced into  the  English  Church  by  Archbishop  Laud.'"  J 

And  the  Protestant  Churchman,  in  its  Review  of  the  work,  thus  en- 
dorses it : 

"  This  work  is  a  seasonable  one  for  the  times,  and  exposes  with  ability  and 
good  temper  the  uUraisra  which  characterizes  some  within  our  communion  and 
which  is  at  variance  with  the  views  held  by  the  great  mass  of  the  most  learned 
and  pious  divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  of  the  venerable  men  who 
revised  the  American  Prayer-Book  and  were  the  instruments  of  giving  to  the 

*  His  whole  name  is  "  William  Francis  Rees  Gawthorn." 
t  "True  Churchmanship  Vindicated,  etc.,"  p.  107. 
X  Prolestaiit  Churchman,  November  8th,  1851. 
1 


iXXVlll  TO  THE  READER. 

Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  the  frame-work  of  its  out- 
ward organization."* 

Now  then,  we  respectfully  ask  in  the  first  place — Is  the  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng 
prepared  to  endorse  this  exhibit  as  a  vindication  of  "  True  Churchmanship  "? 
If  not,  what  becomes  of  his  declaration  as  above,  that  "  there  is  but  little 
variety  of  judgment,  and  no  readiness  of  concession,  among  any  of  our 
ministers  ?"  Surely,  taking  the  above  concessions  as  they  stand  in  the  ex- 
tracts here  given,  and  what  more  could  ?i07i-Episcopalians  demand  ? 

But  there  is  another  conclusion  at  which  Mr.  Gallagher  arrives,  and 
which,  from  its  important  bearing  on  the  whole  question  at  issue  between 
Prelatists  and  Presbyterians,  demands  a  passing  remark.     It  is  this : 

"And  lastly,  that  the  history  of  the  exclusive  theory  proves  it  to  be  oi  foreign 
importation^  a  novelty  of  an  insidious  and  dangerous  nature."! 

Now,  what  is  the  meaning  here  ?  He  tells  us,  "  that  the  exclusive 
divine  right  of  Episcopacy  was  first  maintained  by  Laud,  on  taking  his  de- 
gree at  Oxford,  in  1604. "|  But  does  he  mean  to  say  that  Laud  imported 
it  from  Rome  ?  Himself  shall  answer — "  History,"  he  .says,  "  lays  it  at 
the  door  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Geneva."^  What  is  his  proof  in 
support  of  this  assertion  ?  "  Beza,"  the  successor  of  Calvin,  says  he,  "  like 
a  true  High  Churchman,"  held  that  his  was  "the  only  and  genuine  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  which  Christ  had  instituted,  the  apostles  observed, 
and  which  all  churches  were  bound  to  restore."  That  his  form  was 
"essential  and  divine,"  while  other  forms  were  "human  and  unlawful,"  and 
that  "  purity  of  doctrine  could  scarcely  be  had  to  any  purpose  without  the 
Presbyterian  discipline,'"  etc.|| 

Well,  and  were  the  divines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Geneva  the 
first  to  advocate  this  system  ?  Did  they  stand  alone,  as  the  advocates  of 
ministerial  parity,  or  that  bishops  and  presbyters  were,  by  divine  right,  one 
and  the  same  order  and  possessed  of  the  same  functions  ?  We  refer  the 
reader  to  Part  II.  of  this  Treatise — Ministerial  Parity  tested  by  Scripturig, — in 
proof  of  the  ajMStolic  origin  of  the  above  theory.  Also  to  Part  III.,  Chap. 
X.,  Sections  II.,  III.,  and  IV.,  for  the  evidence  as  derived  from  the  early 
fathers  of  the  first  four  centuries ;  to  the  testimony  of  all  the  Christian 
Churches  in  the  world  ;  together  with  that  of  the  greatest  divines  since  the 
period  of  the  continental  reformation,  that  this  was  the  primitive  regimen 
of  the  Church.  We  also  refer  him  to  Part  III.,  Chapter  VI.,  Sec.  I.,  for 
an  historical  account  of  the  rise  of  Episcopacy,  and  the  circumstances 

*  Protestant  Churchman,  June  28,  1851. 

t  "True  Churchmanship  Vindicated,"  p.  107. 

t  lb.,  p.  95.  h  lb.,  p.  85.  II  lb  ,  pp.  93,  94. 


TO   THE   READER.  XXXIX 

which  led  to  it,  together  with  the  fact  that,  according  to  the  testimony  of 
Jerome  and  the  fatli,ers  who  preceded  him,  that  system  was  adopted  on 
the  ground  of  expediency  only,  and  that  it  fully  recognized  the  perfect 
equalitij  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters  by  divine  right. 

I  now  advance  a  step  farther,  and  affirm  that,  on  this  very  platform,  was 
erected  the  Episcopacy  of  "  the  reformed  Church  of  England,  as  by  law 
established,"  under  the  auspices  of  the  first  English  reformers,  Cranmer  and 
his  coadjutors,  and  that  it  so  continued  down  to  the  time  of  Laud,  a.d. 
1604 ;  a  period  of  over  one  hundred  years  !  Indeed,  unless  I  greatly  err, 
this  can  be  made  to  appear  from  Mr.  G.'s  own  account  of  the  source  of  the 
introduction  of  this  "  unchanging  theory  "  into  the  English  Church.  For 
example,  he  says :  "  We  have  thus  far  traced  the  history  of  the  unchurch- 
ing dogma.  First  asserted  by  the  Romish  Church  ;  introduced  among 
Protestants  at  Geneva  ;  from  thence  imported  by  the  English  Puritans  ;  and 
fro7n  them  borrowed  and  amplified  by  Archbishop  Laud."*  And  yet,  this 
same  author  quotes  from  Prynne  the  following :  "  Says  Prynne  in  his  life 
of  Laud,  p.  2 — '  In  July,  1604,  he  proceeded  Bachelor  of  Divinity ;  hi? 
suppositions  were  taken  verbatim  out  of  Bellarmine,  and  he  then  maintained 
there  could  be  no  church  without  diocesan  bishops,' "  etc.f  Now  then, 
unless  that  reverend  gentleman  can  show  that  the  theory  of  ministerial 
parity,  as  held  by  the  "  Protestants  at  Geneva "  and  by  the  "  English 
Puritans,"  is  identical  with  that  of  "  diocesan  bishops,"  how,  I  respectful]}'- 
ask  him,  can  he  reconcile  the  above  statements  ?  To  argue  that,  because 
the  Romish  Church  admits  the  equality  of  Bishops  and  Presbyters;  there- 
fore, the  Presbyterianism  of  the  "  Protestants  of  Geneva,"  etc.,  is  derived 
from  that  Church,  if  not  a  petitio  principii,^  is  at  least  an  ignorantia 
elenchi.^  For,  though  it  is  granted  that  that  Church  does  admit  the 
equality  of  functions  in  certain  of  her  orders,  yet  that  equality  respects,  not 
her  "  diocesan  bishops,"  but  her  presbyters  and  chor-episcopi  or  village 
bishops,  an  order  quite  distinct  from  the  former.  And  again,  that  equality 
— a  point  of  special  importance  in  this  matter — not  as  founded  in  divine 
right,  but  "by  the  command  of  the  canows. "||  I  repeat  therefore,  that 
Laud's  introduction  into  the  English  Church  of  "  the  exclusive  divine  right 
of  episcopacy"  was  derived,  not  from  the  Presbyterianism  of  Geneva,  etc., 
but  from  the  alleged  divine  right  of  the  Prelacy  of  Rome. 

Finallj',   as  to  the   "public  acts"  referred  to    by  Mr.   Gallagher,   and 
which    he    and    the    advocates    of    Prelacy    (since   the    time    of    Laud) 

*  "  True  Churchmanship  Vindicated,  etc.,"  pp.  97.  98.  f  lb.  p.  95. 

X  Or,  a  begging  the  question.  (j  Or,  a  mistake  of  the  question,  etc. 

II  Council  of  Hispana  in  Spain,  in  Cen.  7,  Chap.  7,  (quoted  by  Powell,  Apostolical 
Succession,  p.  85.) 


Xl  TO  THE   READER. 

generally,  have  thought  it  to  the  interest  of  tlioir  cause  to  throw  under  the 
table,  the  reader  will  find  them  inserted  at  large  in  the  following  Treatise, 
Chap.  X.,  Sec.  V.  Therein  he  will  find  the  most  explicit  avowal  of  the 
scriptural  and  piiraitive  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity,  for  which  I  contend. 
FoUowino-  it  also  is  the  evidence  in  proof  of  the  continuance,  in  the  Enijlish 
Church  formularies,  etc.,  of  this  same  principle  of  ministerial  parity  for  more 
than  one  hundred  years;  together  wit;h  a  refutation  of  the  pretext  of  the 
Rev.  A.  B.  Chapin,  who,  though  he  admits  the  fact  that  by  the  above 
"  public  acts,"  the  English  Church  did  adopt  the  PresbT/terial  form  of  the 
ministry,  yet,  alleging  that  this  "  was  the  opinion  "  of  Cranmer  and  his 
associates  "  as  Romanists,  not  as  Reformers,"  etc.,  affirms  that  "  the  chain 
of  authorities  by  which  the  Reformers  of  the  English  Church  are  to  be 
proved  Presbyterian,  ends  seven  years  before  the  compilation  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,"  that  is,  in  a.d.  1543. 

One  word  more,  however,  in  reference  to  Mr.  Gallagher  and  his  book. 
The  first  English  Reformers,  as  we  have  shown,  having  thrown  themselves 
back  upon  the  scriptural  and  primitive  platform  of  ministerial  parity  instead 
of  the  Romish  theory  of  prelacy,  furnishes  the  only  hypothesis  on  which 
that  reverend  gentleman  could  have  presented  his  readers  with  such  an 
array  of  testimony — "  over  one  hundred  of  the  leading  divines  and  laymen 
of  the  Episcopal  Churches  of  England  and  the  United  States  " — in  proof  of 
the  five  conclusions  as  above,  at  which  he  has  arrived.  But,  his  edifice, 
true  and  imposing  as  it  appears,  is  without  a  foundation  to  support  it.  If, 
as  he  says,  "  public  acts  were  passed,  recocrnizing  the  church  character  of 
non-Episcopal  communions,"  surely  he  will  not  pretend  that  it  was  on  the 
ground  of  English  Church  Episcopacy  by  divine  rir/ht  :  for  he  tells  us  that 
"  Laud  was  the  first "  to  introduce  that  "  exclusive  theory  "  into  the 
Church.  We  ask  then,  why  did  he  not  furnish  his  readers  with  a  copy  of 
the  above  "  public  acts  ?"  Why  suppress  the  very  acts  indispensable  to 
the  consistent  support  of  his  whole  theory,  not  only,  but  equally  indispensa- 
ble as  a  source  of  information  to  those  in  his  own  communion,  whom  he 
professedly  seeks,  on  the  one  hand  to  save,  and  on  the  other  to  rescue  from, 
the  impending  and  already  widely-diffused  evils  of,  the  exclusive  theory  of 
Prelacy  ?  Was  it  because  he  knew  he  could  not  otherwise  enjoy  a  thrust 
at  "the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Geneva?"  It  is  true  also  that  Beza  (a.d. 
1566)  did  write  as  he  states — but  wherefore?  On  the  ground  that  "  the 
English  Church  as  by  law  established  "  differed  with  him  as  to  the  divine 
right  of  Presbyterianism  ?  No.  But  simply  on  the  ground  that  he  objected 
to  its  alliance  with  Episcopacy,  and  that  from  the  fear  that  that  form  of 
government,  as  it  once  had,  so  it  might  again,  generate  a  system,  in  (hat 
church,  of  Romish  Prelacy.     As  in  other  respects,  so  in  this,  he  wished  the 


TO   THE   READER.  xH 

reformation  in  that  Church  to  attain  as  high  a  degree  of  perfection  as  that 
wiiicii  had  marked  its  progress  on  the  continent — nothing  more.  But,  as 
in  the  time  of  Peter  Martyr  and  Bucer  (a.d.  1552),  who,  as  the  assistants 
of  Cranmer  in  the  revision  of  the  Second  Liturgy  of  Edward  VI.,  were  dis- 
satisfied with  the  governing  policy  of  the  English  Reformers,  namely,  that, 
in  order  to  "  win  upon  the  Papists,  and  to  draw^  them  into  their  cliurch  com- 
munion, to  verge  as  little  as  they  could  from  the  Romish  forms  before  in 
use,"  and  which  led  them  to  transfer  "  every  thing  "  which  they  deemed 
"  sound  and  valuable  in  the  Romish  missal  and  breviary,  without  scruple,  to 
the  English  communion  service  and  tlie  Common  Prayer  ;"'^  so,  with 
Beza,  in  regard  to  the  principle  which  led  to  the  adoption  and  continuance 
in  that  Church,  of  the  system  of  Prelacy,  to  wit :  that  of  its  being  more  in 
unison  with  the  genius  of  monarchy. f 

While,  then,  it  is  true,  "  that  Laud  was  the  first"  to  foist  into  the  En- 
glish Church  the  so-called  exclusive  divine  right  of  "  Diocesan  Bishops ;" 
it  is  equally  true,  that  he  obtained  his  theory,  not  as  Mi-.  Gallagher  affirms, 
from  "  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Geneva,"  but  from  Rome  through  Bcl- 
larmine.  And,  while  it  is  true,  that  the  first  English  Reformers  derived 
their  system  of  ministerial  parity  from  the  foreign  churches  of  Germany, 
Holland,  Switzerland,  and  France,  (though  they  joined  with  it,  as  a  matter 
of  expediency,  the  episcopacy  of  the  primitive  jyos^apostolic  age,)  and 
hence,  according  to  Mr.  Gallagher's  own  showing,  were  the  first  "  English 
Puritans ;"  it  is  equally  true  that,  had  the  Bancrofts  and  Whitgifts,  etc.,  of 
Beza's  time,  together  Avith  the  Cranmers,  etc.,  of  that  of  Peter  Martyr  and 
Bucer,  but  yielded  the  points  so  earnestly  urged  by  them  as  necessary  to 
the  perfection  of  the  Protestant  Anglican  Reformation,  how  different,  under 
God,  had  been  the  result  ?  But,  those  leading  spirits  of  the  Anglican 
Church,  as  I  contend,  having,  in  the  first  place,  cringed  to  a  time-serving 
expediency  by  the  adoption  of  Prelacy  as  "  being  more  in  unison  with  the 
genius  of  monarchy ;"  and  in  the  second  place,  with  a  view  "  to  win  the 
papists  and  to  draw  them  into  their  church  communion,"  to  "  verge  as  little 
as  possible  from  the  Romish  forms  before  in  use"  when  engaged  in  the 
compilation  of  their  prayer-book  ;  their  recognition,  notwithstanding,  of  the 
Presbyterian  system  of  the  ministry,  and  the  truly  evangelical  character  of  the 
XXXIX  Articles  :  taking  human  nature  at  what  it  is,  and  who  can  say  that 
he  is  disappointed  that,  from  the  attempted  amalgamation  of  elements  so 
uncongenial,  the  former  should  ultimately  have  gained  the  ascendency  over 
the  latter? 

And,  so  we  find  it.     By  the  gradually  insidious  ascendency  of  the  Ro- 

*  Coleman's  Apostolical  and  Primitive  Church,  p.  441. 

t  "  History  of  England."  by  Macaulay.     Vol.  I.,  pp.  39,  41. 


Xlii  TO  THE  READER. 

mish  opns  operatum  leaven  originally  incorporated  into  the  several  offices 
of  the  English  Liturgy  over  the  evangelism  of  the  XXXIX  Articles  :  the 
crisis  at  length  having  ariived,  and,  with  the  prelatical  system  in  form  al- 
ready furnished  to  his  hand,  Archbishop  Laud, — availing  himself  of  the 
position  assumed  in  those  days,  that  the  most  effectual  way  of  meeting  one 
system  of  the  ministry  claiming  to  be  founded  in  Divine  right,  namely,  the 
Presbyterian,  was  by  setting  up  similar  claims  in  behalf  of  another — intro- 
duced into  the  English  Church,  a.d.  1604,  "  the  exclusive  Divine  right  of 
episcopacy." 

With  the  above  facts  therefore  before  us,  I  now  affirm,  that  the  boun- 
dary LINE  which  at  this  time  divides  the  Church  of  Christ,  commences 
just  at  the  point  where  the  Primitive  and  Anglican  system  of  Prelacy  as 
founded  in  exjyediency  alone  was  displaced,  to  make  way  for  its  claims  as 
based  upon  the  higher  ground  of  Divine  right.  Between  these  two  theo- 
ries t)f  Episcopacy,  I  have  said,  there  is  no  "  via  media."  The  fonner  sys- 
tem involves,  and  recognizes,  all  the  elements  essential  to  the  Presbyterial 
platform,  and  may,  not  only,  but  does,  in  one  instance  at  least,*  exist  in  har- 
monious alliance  with  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the  theory  of  Prelacy  as 
claimed  to  be  founded  in  divine  right,  necessarily  excludes  the  other,  and 
denounces  it  as  unscriptural,  unauthorized,  and  hence,  invalid  and  void.  I 
have  already  ventured  to  allude  to  the  misapprehension  of  anti-prelatical 
writers  on  this  subject.  To  them  therefore,  and  to  all  who  are  really  Low 
Church, — and  whose  "heart's  desire  and  prayer  to  God"  for  Zion  is, 
"  peace  be  within  thy  walls,  and  prosperity  within  thy  palaces," — I  now 
appeal,  Avhether  there  is  any  other  criterion  by  which  to  determine  in  what 
that  theory  consists,  than  that  of  the  theology  and  practice  of  the  English 
Church  between  the  times  of  Cranmer  and  Laud.  Subsequently  to  that 
period,  the  fruitless  efforts  made  after  the  Restoration,  at  a  comprehension  of 
dissenters  by  the  House  of  Bishops,  and  the  growing  ascendency  of  the  ex- 
clusive prelatical  theory  from  the  ultra  views  of  the  non-jurors  who  favored 
the  claims  of  James  II.,  a  Romanist,  the  two  sections  of  the  Church  took 
the  names  of  High  and  Low  Church. f 

But  the  question  is,  was  the  Low  Churchism  of  the  above  named  interval 
between  Cranmer  and  Laud,  the  same  as  that  which  has  since  passed  under 
that  name  ?  Mr.  Giillagher's  entire  book  is  written  to  prove  that  it  is  not. 
And  what  better  evidence  have  we  in  point,  than  the  following  from  tlie 
pen  of  one  of  its  most  distinguished  champions  ?  The  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng,  in 
his  advocacy  of  Prelacy  as  "  a  scriptural  ministry,  and  of  their  derived 
right  thereto,  through  an  appointed  succession  from  the  apostles,"  having 
stated,  that  "  this  resulting  position  of  necessary  separation   from   many 

*  The  ^lethodist  Episcopal  Church. 

t  See  "True  Churchmanship  Vindicated,"  p.  103. 


TO  THE   READER.  xliii 

Chrisiians  whom  we  highly  esteem,  is  much  to  be  regretted  ;"  yet,  "  peace," 
"  precious  and  desirable  as  it  is,"  in  respect  to  "  the  multiplied  denominations 
around  us  ;"  "  we  cannot,"  he  says,  "  make  shipwreck  of  faith  and  a  good 
conscience  to  obtain  it."*  Aye.  And  this,  though  the  declaration  occurs 
in  a  sermon  entitled,  "  A  Plea  for  Union  "/ 

Requesting  the  reader  to  put  his  thumb  on  the  fact  that,  with  prelatists, 
according  to  Dr.  Tyng,  the  obtaining  "  peace"  with  those  outside  the  pale  of 
the  Church  would  be  at  no  less  a  sacrifice  on  their  part  than  that  of  making 
"  shipwreck  of  faith  and  a  good  conscience,"  I  come  now  to  ask,  which  of 
the  two  above  named  systems — Parity  or  Prelacy,  is  justly  chargeable 
with  the  sins  of  schism  and  heresy  ?  In  reply,  I  affirm — and  challenge 
refutation — that  until  it  can  be  made  to  appear,  by  the  united  authority 
of  Scripture,  and  the  historical  records  of  the  English  Church  since  the 
time  of  Edward  VI.,  first,  that  what  we  have  stated  regarding  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  Presbyterial  form  of  the  ministry  by  Divine  right ;  and  second, 
that  the  same  principle  was  incorporated  in  her  standards,  and  continued  in 
practical  operation  for  more  than  one  hundred  years,  is  untrue — a  Presby- 
terian fabrication  :  the  declaration  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng,  that  "  it  is  not" 
they — the  Prelatists — "  who  have  sought  it,"  that  is,  the  existing  division 
between  the  two  bodies.  Episcopal  and  non-Episcopal,  "  nor  can  the  blame 
of  it  rest  upon  them,"  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding  ;  Presbyterians,  I 
submit,  may  justly  claim  exemption  from  the  solemn  and  momentous  charge 
of  schism  and  heresy  in  these  premises.  In  other  words,  I  mean  to  say, 
that  Prelacy,  as  introduced  into  the  English  Church  by  Archbishop  Laud, 
A.D.  1604,  was  an  act  of  schism  and  heresy  against  that  church  in  particu- 
lar, and  against  the  divine  right  of  parity  as  the  center  of  true  evangelical 
protestantism,  in  general. 

It  only  remains  for  me  to  remark  on  this  subject,  that  from  the  discovery 
(after  a  special  and  thorough  re-examination  of  the  system  of  Prelacy,  etc., 
during  a  period  of  some  seven  years  last  past,)  of  the  above  with  other 
facts,  leading  me  to  the  conviction  that  the  Prelatico-Romanistic  leaven  was 
not  merely  incidental  to,  but  that  it  was  incorporated  with,  and  so  formed 
a  part  of,  the  entire  system  ;  and  also,  that  there  was  no  prospect,  from 
the  adoption  by  the  Church  Episcopal,  Anglican  and  American,  of  all  the 
essential  elements  of  the  prelatical  system  as  first  introduced  by  Laud, 
that  she  either  would  or  could,f  return  to  the  original,  and  which  I  affirm 

*  "  A  Plea  for  Union.     A  Sermon,"  etc.,  pp.  16,  17. 

t  As  tc  a  revision  of  the  Prayer-Book,  should  such  a  thing  be,  the  prospect  is,  that  it 
would  be  made  to  assimilate  more  nearly  to  Tractarianism.  But,  the  "  Protestant  Church- 
man," as  the  accredited  organ  of  the  so-called  Low  Church  party,  satisfied  with  the 


xliv  TO  THE  READER. 

to  be,  THE  ONLY  TRUE  SYSTEM  OF  Low  Church  Episcopacy,  I  felt  it  my 
duty  to  secede  from  her  communion. 

I  repeat.  The  Romanistic  leaven,  not  merely  incidental  to  the  system  of 
Episcopacy,  either  Anglican  or  American.  And,  that  I  am  doing  no  injust- 
ice to  the  system,  so-called,  of  Evangelical  Low-Churchism,  when  I  affirm 
■its  Romeward  tendency  on  the  ground  here  named,  I  quote  the  following 
concession  of  a  correspondent  of  the  Protestant  Churchman,  of  January 
3,  1852,  under  the  cognomen  of  G.  C.  He  is  discussing  the  question — 
"  Is  there  a  peculiar  tendency  in  High  Churchraanship  to  Romanism  ?" 
And  having  answered  in  the  affirmative,  he  proceeds  to  say  : 

"  That  there  is  some  tendency  or  liability  to  Romanism,  even  in  our  true  and 
legitimate  Church  system,  just  as  it  was  left  organized  by  the  Reformers,  we 
have  aU-eady  admitted — and  we  have  admitted  that  our  danger  of  Romanism  is 
greater  than  that  of  other  denominations,  whose  erroneous  tendencies  are  goner- 
ally  of  another  sort.  But  the  tendency  to  Romanism  which  we  admit  in  our 
system,  is  just  the  liability  of  Low  Churchmen  to  become  High  Churchmen! 
and  of  course,  in  conceding  this  to  '  a  party  outside  of  the  Church,'  we  only 
affirm  the  position  of  a  peculiar  tendency  in  High  Churchism  to  Romanism."' 

We  have  only  to  add  in  this  place,  that  the  reader  will  find  ample  evi- 
dence on  this  subject,  as  exhibited  of  the  practical  developments  of  the  so- 
called  Low-Church  theory,  in  the  "  Introduction"  to  this  Treatise. 

To  conclude.  It  may  with  safety  be  said,  as  already  remarked,  that  at 
no  period  since  the  time  of  Laud,  has  there  been  such  a  deep  and  earnest 
spirit  of  inquiry  on  the  subjects  discussed  in  these  pages,  as  at  present. 
And,  what  is  no  less  hopeful  than  true,  that  spirit  is  pervading  the  masses 
of  the  Episcopal  Church.  The  appearance,  successively,  of  Dr.  Aydelott's 
work  on  "  The  Present  Condition  and  Future  Prospects  of  the  Protestant 

Prayer-Book  as  it  is,  would  seem,  from  the  following  extract    (Feb.   25,    18.51),  to 
scout  the  idea  of  any  revision  whatever. 

"The  Calendar  says: — 'The  English  Churchman  states  that  there  is  strong  reason 
to  believe  that  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  alter  the  Prayer-Book  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland, by  means  of  a  Royal  Commission.  '  A  Royal  Visitation  !  We  are  not  aware 
that  any  such  visitation  has  taken  place  since  the  time  of  the  Tudors,  when  the  Star 
Chamber  and  Hiy;h  Commission  Court  were  in  vogue.  If  successful,  it  will  be  the  last 
Ro3'al  Commission;  the  next  will  be  Republican.'  This  is  remarkable  language  to 
come  from  such  a  quarter,  and  shows  how  deeply  our  English  brethren  feel  on  the  sub- 
ject.' 

'•  It  is  certainly  very  remarkable  languap;e,  and  shows  how  much  depends  upon  the 
side  from  which  you  look  at  a  question.  The  only  approach  England  has  ever  made  to 
•Republicanism'  was  in  the  days  of  the  Commonwealth;  and  it  is  certainly  rather  odd 
to  hear  the  Lauds  of  the  present  day  preach  about  'Star  Chambers,'  and  'High  Com- 
mission Courts '  It  is  grateful  and  refreshing  to  moderate  people  to  find  occasionally 
how  near  extremes  are  to  each  other;  and  it  would  truly  be  an  instructive  spectacle, 
worthy  to  be  pondered  by  all  violent  party  men,  to  see  the  modern  Lands  standing  on 
the  ground  of  the  old  Puritans.  As  to  altering  the  Prayer-Book,  we  believe  it  to  be  a 
mere  cry,  got  up  for  a  purpose,  or  the  creature  of  Puseyite  imagination." 


TO   THE   READER.  xlv 

Episcopal  Clnirch  in  tlie  United  States,"  published  in  1844;*  of  a  series 
of  articles  under  the  head  of  "  The  True  Churchman,"  by  the  Right  Rev. 
William  Meade,  Bishop  of  Virginia,  published  in  the  Protestant  Church- 
man of  June,  1851  ;  of  Dr.  Butler's  "  Old  Truths  and  New  Errors,"  pub- 
lished in  1851  ;  the  Rev.  Mr.  Gallagher's  more  recent  work  on  "  True 
Churchmanship  Vindicated  ;"  and  the  extraordinary  "  Private  Letter"  of 
the  present  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  etc. :  together  with  the  extraordi- 
nary diversities  which  mark  the  theories  respectively  of  these  different 
writers ;  and  the  extraordinary  attempts  and  failures  to  reconcile  them, 
though  all  avov\*edly  of  the  same  Low  Church  stamp,  have  doubtless  con- 
tributed to  produce  this  state  of  things  in  that  body.  Hence  the  ap- 
pearance, within  a  short  space,  of  repeated  calls  for  works  both  in  peiiodi- 
cal  and  book  form,  to  meet  this  emergency.  Take  the  following  as 
specimens. 

"  To  the  Editors  of  the  Protestant  Churchman  : 

"  Gentlemen, — ^It  would  be  a  most  desirable  thing  if  we  could  have  in  our 
Church  an  able  Review,  which  would  reflect  the  true  sentiments  of  the  Church  in 
the  United  States.  The  Church  Review  assumes  to  itself  that  ambitious  title ; 
but  this  is  about  all.  So  far  from  grappling  with  the  errors  of  the  day,  which 
it  professes  to  do — it  may  grapple  with  them,  but  will  never  destroy  them.     .    . 

In  the  controversy  with  Rome,  we  like  to  find  plain-spoken  men. 

These,  after  all,  are  the  men  upon  whom  any  dependence  can  be  placed  in  time 
of  danger.  And,  though  your  paper  does  not  claim  to  be  '  The  Churchman,'  or 
'  The  Church  Review,'  it  is  what  it  claims  to  be — '  The  Protestant  Churchman' 
— openly  protesting  against  the  errors  of  Rome,  whether  found  within  her  pre- 
cincts or  within  the  borders  of  our  own  Church. 'f  Zau. 

Query. — Why  then  call  for  another  "  able  Review  "? 
We  add  to  the  above,  the  following — 

For  the  Protestant  Churchman. 
"A  Work  Wanted, — Mr.  Editor: — I  have  recently  often  sought  for  some 
brief  and  comprehensive  work,  adapted  to  the  exigencies  of  the  times,  which 
shall  answer  concisely,  forcibly,  and  on  evangelical  grounds,  the  question — 
'  Why  am  I  an  Episcopalian  V  Of  course  I  do  not  seek  for  a  reply  in  that  theo- 
ry which  trusts  every  thing  to  baptismal  regeneration,  eucharistic  grace,  and  an 
Episcopal  succession  ;  but  it  appears  as  though  the  question  might  be  answered 
in  a  satisfactory  manner,  and  so  charitably,  as  neither  to  imchi'istianize  nor  of- 
fend other  denominations — claiming  fur  our  organization  the  advantages  of  apos- 
tolical precedent,  and  therefore  commending  itself  to  the  affection  of  believers 
— while  such  an  organization  is  not  held  to  be  ahsolutehj  essential  to  constitute  a 

Christian  Church We  have  an  abundance  of  volumes,  large 

and  small,  upon  the  other  theory  of  the  Church ;  and  though  the  ideas  above  im- 
perfectly suggested  are  found  sparsim  in  many  works,  is  there  not  wanted  at  this 
time  a  brief  treatise  upon  the  marks  of  our  Church,  according  to  the  views  of 
evangelical  men  1  If  you  can  suggest  a  work  which  answers  the  above  question 
in  this  manner,  you  will  confer  a  great  favor  upon  some  of  your  readers  by  men- 
tioning it  in  your  columns.  Yours  truly,  E.  C.  M."J 

*  The  author  of  this  work  has  since  seceded  from  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  un'ted 
with  the  Presbyterian 

t  The  "Protestant  Churchman,"  May  21,  1801.  X  H^j  Oct.  18,  1851. 


xlvi  TO  THE  READER. 

To  the  above  the  learned  editor  replies: 

"  [Such  a  book  as  our  correspondent  asks  for  is  a  desideratum.  We  wish  that 
some  one  of  the  many  friends  of  the  EvangcHcal  Knowledge  Society  would  de- 
vote talent  and  energy  to  the  preparation  of  this  manual.  Our  correspondent 
will  find  Dr.  Butlers  work  a  valuaule  help  in  the  mean  time — '  The  livuk  of  Com" 
mon  Prayer  inierjrreted  by  its  History.^  E.  P.  C.]" 

And,  the  Protestant  Churchman*  which  has  just  come  to  hand  as  I  am 
finishing  this  article,  copies  the  following  from  an  exchange  paper : 

From  the  Western  Episcopalian. 
"Episcopalian  Exclusiveness. — A  correspondent  of  the  Western  Episcopalian 
holds  that  no  custom  of  the  clergy  of  our  Church  so  much  retai-ds  her  progress, 
and  destroys  her  prosperity,  as  the  one  by  which  ministers  of  other  denomina- 
tions are  excluded  from  our  pulpits.  He  remarks :  '  I  cannot  see  how  it  is  pos- 
sible to  defend  this  practice  without  the  position,  that  ours  is  the  only  true 
Church,  and  that  we  alone  have  a  regularly  authorized  ministry.' " 

Now,  this  is  fairly  bringing  the  matter  to  a  point.  This  "  correspondent" 
really  seems  to  have  before  his  mind's  eye,  our  view  regarding  the  enor- 
mous sins  of  "  error,  heresy,  and  schism,"  from  which,  every  Sabbath  day, 
in  answer  to  the  prayer  in  the  Litany,  he  responds,  "  Good  Lord  deliver 
us  "!  And  who  can  doubt  that  this  is  the  outgoing  of  a  truly  Catholic  and 
benevolent  impulse,  such  as  the  Spirit  of  truth  and  grace  alone  can  pro- 
duce !  But,  the  learned  editor  of  the  above  journal,  anxious  to  quiet  his 
apprehensions,  after  telling  him  that  "  Our  Church  nowhere  denies  the 
validity  of  other  evangelical  churches,  or  their  ministry,"  etc.,  proceeds  to 
argue  that  other  churches — as  the  Presbyterian,  Methodist,  etc.,  adopt  a 
course  equally  exclusive  with  themselves,  only  with  this  small  difference, 
that,  in  an  exchange  of  pulpits  between  a  Presbyterian  and  a  Methodist,  for 
example,  they  "  concede  nothing,  or  compromise  nothing."  Whereas,  our 
admitting  either  to  our  pulpits,  would  "  directly  conflict  with  a  leading  pe- 
culiarity.''  An  Episcopal  clergyman  in  that  case,  would  "  so  far  slight  or 
compromise  his  leading  peculiarity  of  ordination,  that  to  insist  on  the  re- 
ordination  of  the  same  preacher,  if  he  should  seek  aftei-wards  to  enter  our 
ministry,  would  be  charged  upon  us  as  an  inconsistency."  And  yet,  the 
Episcopal  Church  "nowhere  denies  the  validity  of  other  evangelical 
churches,  or  their  ministers  "! 

A  periodical,  however,  is  now  called  for,  wdiich  shall  "  reflect  the  true 
sentiments  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States."  And  "  a  work"  is  wanted, 
which,  while  it  claims  for  the  prelatical  "organization  the  advantages  of 
apostolical  precedent,"  must  yet  show  that  "  such  an  organization  is  not 
held  to  be  absolutely  indispensable  to  constitute  a  Christian  Church ;"  in 
other  words,  it  must  treat  the  subject  of  "  the  marks  of  the  Church,  ac- 

*  lb.,   Dec.  27,  1851. 


TO  THE   READER.  xlvii 

cording  to  the  views  of  Evangelical  men,"  in  a  "  manner  so  satisfactory 
and  so  charitably,  as  neither  to  unchristianize  nor  offend  other  denomina- 
tions" ! 

As  well,  I  contend,  might  a  call  be  made  to  harmonize  the  systems  ad- 
vocated in  the  Zend-avesta  of  Zoroaster,  the  Koran  of  Mohamed,  and  the 
Bible  of  the  Christian,  so  as  to  accord  with  the  views  of  Evangelical  men, 
either  in  or  out  of,  the  Episcopal  Church.  And  now,  before  any  who  may 
choose  to  dissent  from  this  affirmation  pronounces  it  either  extravagant, 
ilUberal,  or  unjust,  I  beg  of  him  a  suspension  of  judgment,  till  the  "  talent 
and  energy"  of  "  some  one  of  the  many  friends  of  the  EvangeUcal  Knowl- 
edge Society,"  shall  bring  his  "  talent  and  energy"  to  bear,  in  "  the  pre- 
paration of  this"  loudly  called-for  "  manual." 

No,  I  repeat.  The  only  door  of  hope  left  for  the  restoration  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  to  "  the  unity  of  the  faith  and  the  bond  of  peace"  for 
which  Christ  prayed  and  the  apostles  labored,  is : 

1.  The  eradication  from  her  escutcheon  of  the  deep  stain  of  schism 
against  the  external  order  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  by  a  return  to  those 
principles  of  church  orgaai'.ation — namely.  Ministerial  Parity,  and  the  doc- 
trines of  the  XXXIX  Articles  as  interpreted  according  to  their  natural  or 
grammatical  sense — as  originally  adopted  by  the  first  English  reformers, 
and  of  which  the  Rev.  Mr.  Gallagher's  five  conclusions  (see  page  xxxvii) 
are  a  true  and  valid  summary.     Then, 

2.  Such  a  revision  of  her  liturgy  as  will  expunge  from  all  the  offices 
thereof  (and  especially  that  of  the  office  for  the  public  baptism  of  infants), 
those  parts  of  the  Romanistic  leaven  as,  at  their  first  compilation,  were  in- 
corporated therein,  "  from  the  Romish  forms  before  in  use." 

The  advantages  of  such  a  reform — on  the  supposition  of  their  retaining 
the  Episcopal  form  of  government  and  a  liturgical  form  of  w^orship,  (both 
of  which  are  taken  for  granted,)  and  which  would  be  but  the  restoration  to 
their  Church,  as  I  have  said,  of  the  only  true  system  of  Low  Churchism — • 
would  be,  that,  having  purged  the  ministerial  regimen  of  their  communion 
from  the  old  Romish  leaven  of  an  obnoxious  ^we?tc?o-apostolicity  as  alleged 
to  be  founded  in  divine  right  on  the  one  hand ;  and  the  offices  of  their 
liturgy  of  the  dangerous,  because  soul-destroying  02ms  ojyeratum  of  the 
sacraments  on  the  other ;  the  renewal  of  those  bonds  of  holy  union  be- 
tween themselves  and  "  the  multiplied  denominations  around  them,"  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  existed  between  "  the  English  Church  Episcopal  as  by 
law  established"  and  the  "  foreign  churches"  for  more  than  one  hundred 
years  from  the  time  of  its  first  organization.  We  should  then  hear  no 
more  from  Low  Churchmen  about  "  confficts  with  a  leading  peculiarity," 


xlviii  TO   THE   READER. 

in  tlie  event  of  an  admission  to  tlieir  pulpits  of  a  Piesbytorian  or  a  Me- 
thodist. 

In  the  liglit,  then,  of  these  facts  and  arguments,  I  think  I  may  claim  at 
the  hand  of  all  concerned,  exemption  from  the  imputation  of  hostility 
either  to  Low  Churchmen  or  Low  Churchism.  What  I  oppose,  and  labor 
in  this  Aolume  to  expose,  is  that  system  which,  more  especiall}'  since  the 
time  of  James  IL,  claiming  to  be  "  called  by  that  name,"  has  nevertheless 
departed  from  the  original  platform.  Nor,  even  under  that  guise,  do  I 
object  to  any  thing  that  is  entitled  to  the  appellation  of  Evangelical  Pro- 
testantism. For,  whether  "some  preach  Chiist  of  envy,  strife  and  conten- 
tion," in  so  far  as  "  Christ  is  preached,  I  therein  do  rejoice,  yea,  and  will 
rejoice."'  As  I  have  said  of  the  Low  Churchism  of  the  English  Cliurch 
between  the  interval  of  Cranmer  and  Laud,  that  it  luas  not  -perfect  (llie 
Presbyterianism  of  its  ministry  and  the  Evangelism  of  the  XXXIX 
Articles  being  the  best  portions  of  it) ;  so  much  less  that  system  wliich  has 
since  prevailed.  Having  exchanged  the  theory  of  Episcopacy,  as  based  on 
the  platform  of  expediency  only,  for  the  system  of  Episcopacy  by  divine 
right,  with  it,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  Latroduction  to  this  Treatise,  i\w  Evan- 
gelism of  that  interval,  as  believed  and  taught  by  the  clergy  of  the  En- 
glish Church  "even  to  a  man,"  has  been  made  to  "walk  the  plank." 
Hence,  while  many  within  the  pale  of  that  Church,  both  of  the  clergy  and 
the  laity,  by  an  adroit  concealment  on  the  part  of  its  advocates  of  what 
constituted  the  original  elements  of  Low  Churchism,  have,  through  "  un- 
avoidable ignorance  and  involuntary  error"  been  betrayed  into  its  support 
under  its  assumed  Evangelico-Protestant  guise,  the  sympathies  of  those 
"  outside"  of  that  pale,  have  been  also  enlisted  in  its  behalf. 

Nor  are  these  the  only  consequences  resulting  from  the  position  assumed 
by  this  theory  oi pseudo  Low  Churchism.  It  has,  I  contend,  originated  all 
the  strifes,  animosities,  contentions,  and  divisions  which  either  have  or  do 
now,  prevail  in  that  body.  It  is  the  charge  of  inconsistency  as  preferred 
by  the  advocates  of  Higli  Churchism  against  their  Low  Church  brethren, 
which  is  now  rending  the  Episcopal  Church  in  both  hemispheres.  I  re- 
peat then.  The  only  antidote  left  them  for  the  eradication  of  existing  evils 
is,  a  return  of  the  whole  Church  Episcopal  to  the  original  platform  of  her 
Anglican  mother.      Doubtless,   Puseyite  and   Hobartian  Churchmen  will 

smile  at  this  suggestion.     The  so-called  Low  Church  party  will I 

know  not  what Nor  is  it  essential.     Sure   I  am,  however,   that 

while  High  Churchmen,  whatever  they  may  choose  to  say  of  my  facts  and 

(1)  Philipp.  1  : 1.VW. 


TO  THE   READER,  xlix 

reasonings  against  the  higher  forms  of  development  of  the  prelatical  sys- 
tem, will  pass  in  my  favor  a  vote  of  thanks  for  my  exposure  of  the  incon- 
aistcncics  and  false  position  among  them  of  the  so-called  Low  Church  party. 
Equally  sure  am  I  that  all  within  that  pale,  who  are  truly  Evangelical  and 
Protestant,  will  thank  me  for  having  drawn  the  curtain  and  reveahno-  to 
them  in  what  consists  the  elements  of  true  Low-Churciiism. 

And,  as  to  "  the  multiplied  denominations"  non-Episcopal,  while  they 
will  have  been  furnished  with  what  I,  at  least,  deem  in  these  times,  guards 
and  checks  indispensable  to  a  right  direction  of  those  benevolent  and  chari- 
table feelings  for  which  they  are  so  distinguished,  and  which  have  been  so 
much  abused,  they  will,  under  God,  be  preserved  from  the  seduclious  pow- 
er of  that  "  little  leaven"  which,  though  presented  under  the  captivating 
guise  of  an  Evangelico-Protestant  name,  when  once  it  enters  the  head  and 
the  heart, — unless  indeed  sovereign  grace  prevent — will  not  fail  to  "  leaven 
the  whole  lump."  For,  of  all  the  " pervents"  from  the  Episcopal  Church 
to  the  Romish  communion,  clerical  or  lay,  I  believe  it  cannot  be  shown  that 
there  is  one,  the  starting  point  of  whose  downward  career  was  not  com- 
menced with  the  theory,  so-called,  of  Evangelical  Low-Churchisra. 

It  will  also  follow  as  a  consequence — unless  I  greatly  err — that,  in  their 
future  attacks  of  the  Roman  schism  and  heresy,  anti-prelatists  will  have  to 
combat  more  especially  with  the  beast  in  his  lamb-like  attire,  than  under 
his  less  disguised  form.  Let  them  continue  the  good-begun  work  of 
assault  against  "  the  antichrist "  as  viewed  from  his  seat  of  power  and  great 
authority  on  the  seven  hills  of  the  eternal  city,  wherever  found.  But  let 
them  not  forget  his  antichristian  guise  tinder  a  Protestant  name.     Here,  I  '^ 

contend,  lies  the  Church's  greatest  danger.  They  must  dig  down  till  they 
reach  the  root  of  the  deadly  upas,  if  they  would  destroy  its  trunk,  branches, 
foliage  and  fruit. 

But,  I  must  close.  The  reader  will  overlook  those  occasional  repetitions, 
unavoidable  in  a  work  like  this. 

The  Table  of  Contents  will  furnish  him  with  a  complete  analysis  of  the 
entire  body  of  facts  and  arguments. 

In  the  preparation  of  the  work,  I  have  endeavored,  so  far  as  I  could,  to 
be  guided  by  the  following  rule  of  composition,  namely: — ''  If  you  would 
write  to  any  purpose,  you  must  be  perfectly  free  from  without  in  the  first 
place,  and  yet  more  free  from  within.  Give  yourself  the  natural  rein  ; 
think  on  no  pattern,  no  patron,  no  paper,  no  press,  no  public  ;  think  on 
nothing,  but  follow  your  impulses.  Give  yourself  as  you  are,  what  you  are, 
and  how  you  see  it.     Every  man  sees  with  his  own  eyes,  or  does  not  see  at 


1  TO  THE   READER. 

all.     This  is  incontrovertibly  true.     Bring  out  what  you  have.     If  you  have 
nothing,  be  an  honest  beggar  rather  than  a  respiictable  thief." 

That  "  grace,  mercy,  and  peace  "  may  be  yours  ever,  is  the  prayer  of 

THE  AUTHOR. 
New  York,  Feb.  1852. 


END    OF    PRELACY. 


INTROBUCTION. 

Evangelical  Protestantism — Romanism — A  new  Contest  inevitable — A  difference — 
Low-Churchism  compared  with  the  so-called  Low-Church  Theory,  as  doctrinally 
and  practically  developed,  &c. 

The  following  Treatise  claims  to  be  the  product  of  a  Special 
Providence.     It  is  designed  for  the  people. 

Its  object  is  Truth.  The  names  of  living  authors — a  circum- 
stance which  may  incur  the  frowns  of  the  fastidious — are  of  fre- 
quent occurrence  in  these  pages.  Beyond  a  due  regard  to  the 
distinction  between  personal  character,  which  I  hold  to  be  sacredly 
one's  o^vn,  and  what  I  deem  to  be  the  false  system  herein  exposed, 
I  have  no  apology  to  offer  for  the  liberty  here  taken.  On  this 
subject.  Bishop  Burnet  says,  "  Whatever  moderation  or  charity  we 
owe  to  men's  persons,  we  owe  none  at  all  to  their  errors,  and  to 
that  frame  of  mind  wdiich  is  built  upon  and  supported  by  them." 
And,  if  we  regard  scriptural  precedents  as  established  by  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  we  shall  find  that  persons  and  their  errors  are 
not  unseldom  united.  Indeed,  those  who,  imder  all  circumstances, 
"  attempt  to  combat  errors  abstractedly  and  independently  of  the 
persons  who  hold  them,  resemble  the  army  of  Mithridates,  who 
lost  the  day  by  mistakingly  aiming  their  arrows,  not  at  the  per- 
sons, but  at  the  shadows  of  the  Roman  soldiers." 

With  these  remarks  premised,  I  observe ;  did  the  points  at 
issue  between  anti-prelatists  and  their  opponents  relate  simply  to 
matters  of  expediency,  in  the  adoption  of  one  form  in  preference  to 
another,  among  the  prevailing  religious  external  organizations  of 
the  day,  the  following  pages  had  not  been  written.     And  yet,  such 


16 

is  the  view  in  which  they  have  come  to  be  regarded,  especially  by 
the  laity  of  those  bodies  prelatically  denominated  "  the  illegitimate 
brood  of  dissent."*  In  the  current  nomenclature  of  the  day  among 
them,  the  whole  subject,  so  to  speak,  is  made  to  resolve  itself  into 
a  mere  quarrel  among  the  clergy  as  to  who  are  office-bearers,  and 
who  of  them  is  "  the  greatest  in  the  Kingdom  of  God."  Thence 
resulting,  is  that  spirit  of  indifference  to  these  things,  which,  under 
the  plea  of  an  aversion  to  controversy,  and  the  like,  cannot,  at 
least  in  my  judgment,  prove  other  than  most  perilous  to  those 
very  principles,  professedly  held  by  them  as  dearer  than  life 
itself. 

To  account  for  this  state  of  things,  a  priori^  and  to  furnish  the 
anti-prelatical  churches  of  Christ  "scattered  abroad"  with  such  a 
word  of  admonition  and  warning  as  the  present  emergency  seems 
to  demand ;  and,  to  present  before  all,  the  theory  of  Prelacy,  doc- 
triually  and  practically,  as  it  is,  constitute  the  design  of  this 
Treatise. 

To  proceed.  With  much  that  is  commendable  and  encouraging 
in  the  existing  piety  and  orthodoxy  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  it  is 
undeniable  that  "  the  signs  of  the  times  "  in  the  ecclesiastical  hea- 
vens of  both  hemispheres,  portend  that  "the  battle  of  the  Ref- 
ormation IS  AGAIN  TO  BE  FOUGHT."f  That  battle,  commenced 
under  the  ausjjices  of  the  humble  monk  of  Erfurt,  Luther,  owed 
its  origin,  under  God,  to  the  revivified  elements  of  a  primitive 
Christianity,  as  antagonistic  to  an  almost  universal  Church  apos- 
tasy. The  result,  as  matured  and  perfected  by  other  hands — 
Zwingle,  Melancthon,  Calvin,  etc. — formed  the  basis  of  a  generic 
Protestantism  for  the  Churches  of  Christ  throughout  Christendom. 
In  its  light,  and  blest  with  its  immunities,  myria,ds  have  rejoiced, 
millions  of  whom  have  stamped  their  estimate  of  the  value  of  the 
principles  it  inculcates,  with  their  blood !  If  we  except  that  of  the 
tragical  scenes  of  Calvary  and  its  stupendous  results,  the  Conti- 
nental Reformation  was  the  grandest  moral  revolution  that  has 
since  transpired. 

But,  since  the  achievement  of  that  victory  in  behalf  of  the 
church  and  people  of  God  over  the  tyranny  and  superstitions  of 
Papal  Rome,  more  than  three  and  a  quartcf  centuries  have  elapsed. 

*  a  speaker  in  the  Gen.  Conv.  of  the  P.  E.  Church,  Cincinnati,  0.  1850. 
t  Bishop  Meade's  Conv.  Address,  1851.     Prot.  Churchman,  June  2Jst,  1851. 


17 

The  Eeformed  Cliurclies  all  over  Christendom,  for  the  most  part,  ^ 
and  for  a  long  period,  have  not  only  been  exempt  from  persecu-*^ 
tion,  but  have  been  wafted  along  upon-  the  current  of  great  exter- 
nal prosperity,  circumstances,  I  appeal,  always  perilous  to  her 
groTV'th  in  grace  and  steadfastness  in  the  faith.  Nothing  invidious 
is  intended  towards  any  *  who  profess  and  call  themselves  Chris- 
tians,' when  I  affirm,  that  the  present  plethoric  state  of  Protestant 
Christendom  indicates  the  stealthy  encroachments  of  that  "  spirit 
of  slumber  "(1)  which,  so  far  as  indulged,  exposes  them  to  the 
same  "  strong  delusions  "  of  the  same  arch-enemy  and  in  the  same 
way,  as  that  by  and  through  which  was  effected  the  almost  total 
subversion,  for  fifteen  centuries,  of  the  primitive  faith  and  order  of 
the  Gospel.  And  such,  I  contend,  is  the  existing  extent  of  these 
encroachments,  as  loudly  to  call  upon  all  who  acknowledge  "  the 
Head,"  Christ,  and  who  "hold  the  truth  in  love,"  to  prepare  them- 
selves for  the  approaching  contest.  Longer  escape  from  this  con- 
test is  impossible.  The  hand  of  God  is  in  it.  The  hand  of  ,God 
will  control  and  guide  it  to  a  rightful  issue. 

And  this  conflict,  I  submit,  respects  principles  cardinal  to  the 
salvation  of  the  soul.  As  at  the  Reformation,  so  now.  Then,  the 
battle  was  waged  between  the  revivified  elements  of  a  primitive 
Christianity,  and  an  almost  universal  anti-Christian  apostasy.  In 
other  words,  it  was  a  contest  between  Protestantism  and  Roman- 
ism. Now  again,  by  the  insidious  workings  of  the  old  Bomish 
leaven^  the  faith  and  order  of  the  original  reformation  principles  are 
invaded.  And,  compared  with  the  simple  and  Avell-defined  ele- 
ments of  the  original  contest,  the  present  is  one  profoundly  complex. 
This  will  appear,  not  only  from  the  nature  of  the  subjects  involved, 
but  especially  from  the  kind  of  evidence  on  which  the  Romish 
theory  is  alleged  to  rest ;  the  reasonings  on  which  its  advocates 
rely  for  its  support ;  and,  though  last,  not  least,  its  Protean  form. 

First,  then,  let  us  compare  the  two  systems — the  Protestant  and 
the  Romish. 

I.  Protestantism. — This  System  affirms  that  the  ordinances  of 
the  Gospel,  inasmuch  as  ihej  follow  faith,  are  the  divinely-appointed 
means  of  grace  and  help)S  to  faith  thus  conferred,  and  hence,  that 
faith  is  the  only  medium  of  spiritual  renewal,  and  of  the  union  of 
the  soul  to  Christ.     Also  that,  as  this  "  faith  cometh  by  AeanVi^,'* 

(1)  Rom.  11 :  8. 


18 

God  Las  instituted  in  his  Church,  in  addition  to  and  entirely  inde- 
pendent of,  the  extraordinary  and  temporary  College  Apostolic,  a 
permanent  order  of  PiiESBYTEii-BisnoPS ;  as  a  ministry  which  ever 
has  been,  and  ever  will  be,  perpetuated  in  the  Church;  not,  how- 
ever, by  seminal  or  genealogical  descent,  but  by  virtue  of  their 
TROVIDENTIAL  designation  thereto  through  the  call  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  voice  of  the  Church,  and  ordination  by  "the  laying  on  of 
the  hands  of  the  presbytery."     (1  Tim.  4, :  14.) 

II.  EoMANiSM,  on  the  other  hand,  may  be  defined  to  consist  of 
a  system  of  Sacramental  Ceremonialism,  as  involving  the  doctrine 
of  the  inherent  grace  of  external  rites  and  ceremonies — baptism,  the 
eucharist,  confirmation,  absolution,  &c. — as  administered  by  and 
through  an  alleged  spiritual  hierarchy,  or  a  Christianized  sacer- 
dotal priesthood  of  "divers  orders,"  in  unbroken  continuity  by 
consecration  and  ordination,  as  serninally  or  genealogically  derived 
from  Christ  and  his  Apostles  in  the  line  of  Episcopal  Bishops  ; 
and,  that  such  a  system  of  sacramental  grace,  dispensed  at  the 
hands  of  such  a  priesthood,  are  the  indispensable  conditions  of  salva- 
tion: and  hence,  that  any  ministry,  not  derived  from  and  not 
belonging  to  said  spiritual  priestly  hierarchy,  being  invalid,  their 
ministrations  are  invalid  and  of  no  avail. 

The  two  systems  thus  defined,  it  cannot  be  other  than  "  evident 
unto  all  men,"  that  the  Prelatico-Ej^iscopal  controversy  is  not  a 
mere  war  of  words.  So  far  from  it,  as  we  have  said,  it  involves 
principles,  cardinal  to  the  salvation  of  the  Soul.  Every 
question  connected  with  it,  rightly  considered,  will  be  found  to 
hinge  upon  that  mighty  struggle  for  the  mastery, — a  struggle 
coeval  with  the  very  birth  of  Christianity, — between  the  religion 
of  Se-nse  and  of  Reason ; — the  religion  of  the  carnal  mind  and 
heart; — and  that  of  the  spiritual  man,  as  predicated  of  the  discov- 
ery of  his  lost  condition  by  nature  and  of  his  recovery  by  grace 
through yat^A,  as  revealed  in  '•'•Holy  Scripturer  Eomanism  as  a  sys- 
tem  of  sacramental  ceremonialiwi,  is  but  the  superstructure,  of  which 
the  alleged  spiritual  priestly  hierarchy  is  the  foundation.  In 
the  relation  of  cause  and  eifcct,  this  priesthood,  as  claiming  to 
be  founded  in  prescriptive,  that  is,  divine  rigid,  is  the  root  of  the 
tree  of  which  the  Sacramental  theory  and  its  concomitants,  are  the 
fruit.  It  is  the  heart  whence  flows  the  blood  of  life  and  vigor  to 
the  body — the  CnrRcn, — its  sacraments,  rites,  &c.     It  hence  fol- 


19 

lows  that,  however  diversified  its  modes  of  development,  whether 
put  forth  under  the  symbolism  of  Judaism,  or  baptised  by  a  Chris- 
tian and  a  Protestant  name ;  and  again,  this  latter  phase,  however 
divided  and  subdivided  into  various  sectaries :  when  subjected  to 
the  test  of  "  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors  "  (as  it  is  the  de- 
sign of  this  Treatise  to  demonstrate),  will  be  found  resolvable  into 
the  same  original  Elements^  namely,  a  reliance  upon  the  efficacy 
OF  saokamental  ceremonialism,  as  dispensed  by  a  priesthood. 

On  the  other  hand,  Protestantism,  when  subjected  to  the  same 
test,  by  whatever  denominational  distinction  it  may  be  known, 
must  range  under  the  opposite  class  of  principles,  namely :  a  re- 
jection, WHOLE  and  entire,  OF  ALL  RELIANCE  UPON  AN  ALLEGED 
SPtRITUAL  PRIESTLY  HIERARCHY,  AND  THE  EFFICACY  OF  SACRAMENT- 
AL GRACE    AS    CLAIMED   TO    BE    DISPENSED   BY   THEM ;  and    mUSt  plaCG 

the  sinner's  hope  of  salvation  on  the  broad  ground  of  his  JUST- 
IFICATION BY  FAITH  ALONE,  in  and  through  the  merits  of 
a  crucified  Kedeemer.  In  other  words,  Romanism,  doctrinally,  is 
naught  but  the  primitive  heresy  of  Justification  "  by  the  deeds  of 
the  law  "  in  symbolic  form.  The  reader  cannot  fail  to  observe  the 
striking  analogy  between  it  and  the  Judaizing  corrupters  of  "  the 
faith  delivered  to  the  saints  "  in  the  Apostle's  times,  who  taught 
that,  "except  a  man  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses," 
and  ^'■Tceepthe  ?aw,"  he  ^'•cannot  he  saved.^\l)  Protestantism,  its 
opposite,  stands  identified  with  the  Pauline  teachings,  that,  as  "in 
Christ  Jesus  neither  circumcision  availeth  anything,  nor  uncircum- 
cision,  but  a  new  creature,"  through  the  power  of  "  faith  which 
worketh  by  love  ;"(2)  it  follows,   "  that  a  man  is  justified  by  fixith, 

and  not  by  works  of  THE  LAW."(3) 

Ergo.  These  two  systems  are  absolutely  antipodal.  The  cardinal 
principles  of  each  are  totally  irreconcilable.  There  is  no  assign- 
able principle  of  affinity  or  of  fraternization  between  them. 
Komanisra,  as  it  ever  has,  so  it  ever  will  remain,  "  a  stone  of 
stumbling,  and  a  rock  of  offense"  to  the  great  principles  of  our 
Protestant  faith.  And,  as  with  Israel  of  old,  who  failed  to  "  attain 
to  the  law  of  righteousness,  because  they  sortght  it  not  by  faith,  but, 
as  it  were,  by  the  deeds  of  the  law ;"  so  is  it,  and  so  it  ever  will  be 
with  every  form,  HOWEVER  DISGUISED,  of  the  system  of  priestly 
sacram^ntarianism, — a  system,  we  add,  erected,  first,  on  its  alleged 

0)  Acts  15  :  1,5.  (-2)  Oal.  6  :  15;   5:6j  (3)2:16. 


20 

analogy  to  the  Lcvitical  priesthood  and  ritualism  as  its  type; 
and,  second,  on  the  declared  express  command  and  authority  of 
Christ  and  his  Apostles, 

Undeniably,  therefore,  in  whatever  "  standards,"  or  by  whatever 
sect  or  party  ranging  under  those  standards,  the  system  of  a 
prelatico-spiritual  priestly  hierarchy  is  claimed  as  indispensable  to 
impart  validity  to  the  ministry  and  to  the  sacraments  of  the  Church  ; 
in  other  words,  which  affirms  that  such  a  priesthood  is  "  essen- 
tial" either  to  the  "  existence!'^  or  to  the  ^^ perfection^''  of  a  Church 
on  the  grounds  here  laid  down  ;  however  they  may  labor  to  dis- 
guise such  system  by  the  engraftment  of  other  fruit  on  the  branches 
of  the  tree  of  which  it  is  the  EOOT,  there  is  no  escaping  the 
sequence,  that  they  are,  generically,  Koman  !  It  is  an  unnatural 
alliance !  It  must  be  followed  either  by  the  complete  absorption 
of  the  exotio  scion  by,  or  its  assimilation  to,  the  parent  stock,  or 
else  by  its  excision  or  secession  I 

The  question  then  presents  itself:  Is  there  any  form  of  the 
prelatico-episcopal  theory  cognizable  to  us,  bearing  the  marks  of 
this  false  guise?  If  so,  under  what  form  of  its  development  does 
it  appear  ?  Before  furnishing  a  reply  to  the  above,  we  must  not 
overlook  the  fact  of  the  high  claims  of  the  Prelatical  theory, 
viewed  as  a  whole,  to  its  possession  of  the  double  attributes  of 
Catholicity  and  Unity. 

But,  besides  the  distinction  of  the  aggregate  body  Catholic 
into  the  Eomish  and  the  Anglican  and  American  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Churches,  there  is  no  fact  more  indubitable  than  that  of  a 
coincidence  between  the  divisions  of  both  bodies  into  various  sects. 
To  say  nothing  of  the  glaring  absurdity  of  their  application  of 
the  "  note''  unity ^  as  an  infallible  criterion  of  true  Catholicity, 
the  Greek  and  Eoman  Churches,  each  in  turn  anathematizing  the 
other,  while  both  denounce  and  excommunicate  the  Anglican  and 
American  branches ;  and  these  again  exscinding  from  their  pale 
both  the  Greek  and  Roman  as  guilty  of  damnable  heresy  and 
schism  ;  in  addition  to  the  fact  that  the  Romish  Chukch,  on  the 
article  of  what  constitutes  the  "  notes"  by  which  she  is  to  be 
known  from  all  others,  varies  them  from ybur  to  one  hundred ;  that 
her  communion  has  been  rent  by  frequent  schisms;  that  her 
writers  concede  numerous  breaks  in  the  chain  of  her  alleged  un-; 
broken  succession  ;  that  in  the  election  of  her  popes  she  has  seven 


21 

different  modes  ;  tliat  on  tlie  subject  of  her  supremacy  there  are 
four  different  parties ;  that  on  the  article  of  that  infallibility  on 
which  she  alleges  to  build  her  faith,  four  classes  of  opinions  have 
obtained ;  and,  finally,  that,  within  her  pale  there  are  numerous 
sects,  of  which  the  principal  are  the  Dominicans,  Franciscans, 
Jacobites,  Jansenists,  Iconolatrse,  &c. :  so,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Anglican  and  American,  though 
claiming  to  range  under  the  same  banner ;  holding  communion 
with  the  same  Holy  Catholic  Church  Apostolic,  and  having  the 
same  standard,  liturgy  and  ceremonials  ;  yet,  we  aifirm,  that  there 
is  no  body  on  earth  more  completely  rent  into  sects  and  parties 
than  it. 

These  sects  are,  the  Tractarian  or  Puseyite ;  the  Hobartian  or 
High  Church ;  the  so-called  Evangelical  Low  Church ;  and  the 
real  Low  Church. 

Now,  in  regard  to  these  sects,  the  question  is,  in  what  consists 
the  difference,  theologically^  between  them  ?  In  respect  to  the  first 
two,  it  were  a  waste  of  time  and  paper  to  detain  the  reader  to  ad- 
duce the  proof  of  the  Romanizing  tendencies  of  their  respective 
theories.  In  the  warfare  which  has  been  waged  among  themselves, 
the  soKjalled  Evangelical  Low  Church  sect,  anxious  to  ward  off 
the  charge  of  a  tendency  to  Komanism  of  the  prelatico-episcopal 
scheme  as  advocated  by  them,  have  saved  their  anti-prelatical 
neighbors  the  labor  of  this  work.  But  the  question  returns  upon 
us :  Is  it  true  that  their  theory  is  exempt  from  the  charge  of  a 
Romanizing  tendency  ?  So  far  from  it,  fearless  of  successful  refu- 
tation, we*  affirm,  that  the  Low  Church  phase  of  the  prelatical 
scheme  is  the  only  prop  of  support  to  the  entire  fabric.  Take  away  that^ 
and  the  whole  superstructure  at  once  falls  to  the  ground.  In  other 
words,  we  mean  to  say,  that  were  it  not  for  the  theory,  so-called, 
of  EVANGELICAL  LOW-CHURCHISM,  the  System  of  Pro- 
testant Episcopacy,  both  Anglican  and  American,  would  soon 

BE  numbered  among  THE  THINGS  THAT  WERE. 

We  are  fully  aware  of  the  responsibility  of  such  an  assumption. 
Nothing  less  than  the  deepest  convictions  of  duty  to  the  Church 
of  Christ  will  justify  it.  Surely  the  prejudices  of  some,  and  the 
scorn,  and  obloquy,  and  opposition,  certain  to  follow  on  the  part 

*  The  reader  will  please  hereafter  to  indulge  us  in  the  interchangeable  use — as  a 
matter  of  acconnmodation — of  the  singular  and  plural  pronouns.      (See  1  Thess.  2  :  IS.) 


22 

of  others,  might,  in  charity,  we  think,  be  thought  sufficient  to 
deter  one  from  assuming  such  responsibiUty  on  any  other  ground. 
Then,  too,  we  may  have  looked  at  this  subject  with  a  jaundiced 
eye.  If  so,  God  forbid  that  it  should  also  have  been  with  '  malice 
aforethought,'  In  this  matter,  we  have  "  a  good  conscience"  to- 
ward God  and  man.  The  work  of  removing  the  gangrene  which 
may  be  thought  to  have  obscured  or  deranged  our  optics,  is  free 
and  open  to  all. 

We  repeat  then :  It  is  not  the  ecclesiastico-sacerdotal  system  of 
sacramental  ceremonialism  in  its  Papistical,  Tractarian,  and  Ho- 
bartian  or  High  Church  aspects  alone  that  we  have  to  combat. 
Under  these,  its  grosser  forms  of  development,  there  is  but  little 
danger  to  be  apprehended  of  its  influence  upon  non-episcopal 
minds.  Even  with  the  epithet  "  Protestant"  stamped  upon 
their  escutcheon,  their  obvious  Eomanistic  cast  repels,  rather  than 
attracts,  such.  No.  It  requires  the  appended  epithet  "Evan- 
gelical," to  that  of  Protestant,  to  effect  this.  With  deference, 
however,  we  ask :  Does  it  necessarily  follow  that  the  prelatico- 
episcopal  theory  has  a  less  Romeward  tendency  from  the  mere  cir- 
cumstance of  such  an  alliance  ?  Yea,  more, — may  not  its  seduc- 
tive power  be  increased  just  in  proportion  to  the  concealment  of 
its  Eomanistic  virus  under  that  garb  ?  Error  and  heresy,  all  his- 
tory demonstrates,  is  insidious  in  its  approach,  gradual  in  its  pro- 
gress, and,  unless  the  grace  of  God '  prevent,  certain  in  its  end. 
Let  us  not  think  "  that  false  doctrine  will  meet  us  face  to  face, 
saying,  "  I  am  false  doctrine,  and  I  want  to  come  into  your  heart." 
Satan  does  not  go  to  work  in  that  •  way.  He  dresses  up  false  doc- 
trine like  Jezebel ;  he  paints  her  face  and  tires  her  head,  and  tries 
to  make  her  like  truth.  Think  not  that  those  who  preach  error 
will  never  preach  anything  that  is  true.  Error  would  do  but  little 
harm  if  that  was  the  case.  No !  Error  will  come  before  you 
mingled  with  much  that  is  sound  and  scriptural.  Tlie  sermon 
will  he  all  right,  except  a  few  sentences.  The  hook  will  he  all  good, 
except  a  few  pages.  And  this  is  the  chief  danger  of  religious  error 
in  these  times, — it  is  like  the  subtle  poisons  of  days  gone  by ;  it 
works  so  deceitfully  that  it  throws  men  oif  their  guard.  Beeth- 
EEN,  TAKE  CAKE.  "  llemcnibcr  that  even  Satan  himself  is  trans- 
formed into  an  angel  of  light."* 

*  Living  or  Dead,  by  Krjle. 


23 

A  true  portrait  this,  as  we  honestly  believe,  of  the  nature,  char- 
acter and  tendency  of  that  phase  of  the  prelatical  system,  so 
called,  of  Ev^angelical  Low  Churchism.  These  claim  to  possess 
"  a  scriptural  Christianity,"  and  that  they  are  really  Protestant 
and  evangelical.  Their  pulpits  and  presses  literally  groan  under 
the  weight  of  their  ex-cathedra  anathemas  against  their  Tractarian 
and  Hobartian  brethren  who  are  ecclesiastically  "  bone  of  their  bone 
and  flesh  of  their  flesh,"  on  the  ground  of  the  "  arrogant  assump- 
tion of  spiritual  and  priestly  power"  which  their  systems  in- 
volve ;  "  calling  and  considering  bishops  to  be  apostles^  succes- 
sors to  the  office  of  the  Apostles,  standing  in  the  place  of 
the  Apostles,  and  inheriting  all  their  powers  except  those 
which  are  personal  and  miraculous.  In  this  fact,"  says  a  recent 
writer,  "  is  to  be  found  the  origin  and  reason  for  those  extravagant 
claims  of  exclusive  government  and  jJ^'iestly  j^oiuer  and  grace^^  which 
they  affirm  to  be  vested  "w  hishopd^''''  and  which  he  declares  to  be 
"absolutely  blasphemous!"*  And,  surely,  no  " real  Protestant" 
will  ask  for  an  argument  in  proof  that  such  a  system  strikes  at  the 
very  heart;  that  it  aims  to  tear  up  by  the  root  the  principle  of 
justification  hy  faith  alone  as  the  ground  of  the  sinner's  acceptance 
with  God.     In  other  words,  that  it  is  "absolutely  blasphemous." 

On  the  other  hand,  in  order  to  heighten  the  alleged  contrast  of 
their  theory  of  Prelacy  to  "the  absolutely  blasphemous  systems  of 
their  brethren  as  above,  they  fail  not  to  introduce  it  to  our  notice 
by  reminding  us  of  the  wisdom  in  which  it  is  founded,  and  the 
charity^  liberality,  and  tolera.nce  with  which  it  is  exercised.  Take 
the  following,  in  illustration  of  the  mode  under  which  they 
habitually  present  their  theory  in  the  aspect : 

1. — Of  Catholic  Communion.     Thus  Bishop  Burgess  of  Maine — • 

"  One  more  great  principle  by  which  the  ministers  and  members  of  our 
Church  must  be  marked,  is  their  acknowledgment  and  appreciation  of  the  com- 
munion Avhich  binds  together  the  believers  of  all  times,  of  all  lands,  and  of  both 
states  of  being.  Few  words- have  been  more  perverted  than  the  name  '  Catho- 
licity;'  nml  never  has  it  been  more  perverted  than  when  it  has  been  made  to  desig- 
nate exdusiveness.  The  great  idea  which  it  should  convey  is,  that  as  God  has 
made  of  one  blood  all  nations  to  dwell  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  we  are 
all  his  off>pring,  so  he  will  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  truth  :  that  Christ  died  for  all ;  that  he  has  redeemed  his  people 
Dut  of  every  kindred  and  tongue  and  people  and  nation  ;  that  they  are  one  in 
him,  many  members  in  one  body,  by  one  Spirit,  and  having  one  Lord,  one  faith, 

*  "  Old  Truths  and  New  Errors,"'  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Butler.     (Prot.  Churchman,  Aug 
3,1850.  '      ^ 


24 

one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father.  All  Christians  believe  that  all  Christians 
have  such  fellowship  ;  but  it  may  be  erroneously  beheld,  on  one  side  as  a  mat- 
ter of  mere  organic  connection,  or  on  the  other  as  a  matter  of  mere  individual 
feeling.  These  must  be  combined  :  a  catholic  feeling  embraces  all  who  love  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christy  and  the  catholic  organism  embraces  all  who  have  been  bap- 
tized into  Christ;  and  both  are  hostile  to  a  narrow,  miserable  spirit  of  sectarian 
contentiony 

2. — Strong  language  this.  Not  more  so,  however,  than  that 
employed  by  the  same  class  of  -writers  in  their  exhibit  of  the 
theological  and  ecclesiastical  differences,  which  exist  between 
themselves  and  their  awfi-prelaticai  neighbors.  The  impression 
thence  arising  is,  that  it  is  but  '  a  paper  wall ' — the  mere  '  shadow 
of  a  shade,^  of  difference,  that  separates  them.  Thus  Bishop  Smith 
of  Kentuck}^,  in  a  recent  publication  on  the  "  Position  of  Epis- 
copahans  in  relation  to  Christians  of  other  names,"  says : — 

"  Partially  separated  as  we  are,  if  we  really  fully  understood  one  another,  how 
delightful  our  intercourse  might  be.  Almost  perfectly  agreed  in  the  great  doc- 
trines essential  to  the  glory  of  God  and  the  salvation  of  men ;  still  more  nearly 
agreed  as  to  all  the  exercises,  struggles,  and  conflicts  which  signalize  the  true 
life,  the  inner  life  of  the  really  converted  child  of  God,  and  which  ought  to 
form  the  main  staple  of  our  personal  intercourse ;  and  more  perfectly  agreed 
still  in  the  word  of  God  to  be  read,  the  sacred  hymns  to  be  sung,  and  the  sub- 
stance of  the  prayers  to  be  offered  together  to  our  common  Redeemer  and 
Lord ;  how  profitable,  how  delightful  might  be  the  interviews  of  the  clergy  with 
each  other  in  their  stxidies,  and  of  truly  Christian  people  with  their  fellow- 
Christians  of  other  names,  in  their  families,  and  by  their  f  resides ;  if  all  would 
agree  to  dismiss,  at  such  times,  from  their  thoughts  the  points  upon  which  they 
differ,  and  to  allow  none  to  be  introduced  but  those  in  wnich  they  agree,  or  can 
differ  in  love.  A  slight  diversity  imparts  a  certain  spice  to  such  intercourse. 
Who  has  not  felt  his  soul  refreshed  by  a  conversation  based,  or  a  supplication 
breathed,  upon  idea-s  and  in  forms  of  expression  a  little  different  from  those  long 
stereotyped  and  in  familiar  use  1  Who  has  not  felt,  whilst  giving  hospitality  to 
a  truly  pious  clergyman  of  a  denomination  different  from  his  own,  that  he  has 
been  '■entertaining  an  angel  unawares''?  Oh!  when  will  the  day  come  when 
cases  of  this  kind  will  be  as  general,  as  the  exceptions  are  now  rare  ^"* 

3. — The  same  holds  true  of  their  denial,  as  a  sequence  of  their 
alleged  theory,  of  what  is  technically  termed  "  the  unchurching 
dogma  "  of  the  other  schools.  Thus,  Dr.  Stone,  in  his  exposition 
of  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  namely :  "  It  is  evident  unto  all 
men,"  etc.,f  remarks  on  the  words  "  this,"  "  the,"  "  Christ's,"  etc., 
as  follows : 


*  Prot.  Churchman,  Sept.  14,  18-50. 

■f  "  It  is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading  holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors, 
that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have  been  these  Orders  of  Ministers  in  Christ's 
Church, — Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons.  Which  offices  were  evermore  had  in  such 
reverend  estimation,  that  no  man  might  presume  to  execute  any  of  them,  except  he  were 
first  called,  tried,  examined,  and  known  to  have  such  qualities  as  are  requisite  for  the 
same ;  and  also  by  public  prayer  with  imposition  of  hands,  were  approved  and  admitted 


25 

"  Had  the  word  been  '  the,'  instead  of  '  this,'  or  '  Christ^s^  in- 
stead of  '  this,'  it  would  have  made  a  vast  diJfference  of  meaning. 
It  would  have  made  our  Ordinal  declare  what  our  Church  herself 
has  never  declared,  and  what,  I  repeat,  till  she  loses  her  Protest- 
antism, she  cannot  be  made,  by  her  high  authority,  to  declare, 
that,  without  an  episcopacy^  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  min- 
istry in  the  Church  of  Christ."* 

So  Dr.  Butler,  in  his  "  Old  Truths  and  New  Errors,"  etc.—"  We 
have  shown  that  while  our  Church  has  stated,  in  general  terms, 
what  conditions  are  necessary  to  constitute  Christian  societies  true 
churches,  she  has  not  so  defined  what  shall  be  considered  a  fulfill- 
ment of  these  conditions  for  other  churches^  as  to  enable  us  to  go 
through  Christendom  and  dogmatically  determine  which  so-called 
churches  are  triLe,  and  which  are/a?se."f 

And  so,  finally,  "  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Society  for  the  Pro- 
motion of  Evangelical  Knowledge,"  in  a  recent  "Statement  of 
^ir  digtinotive  principles  :" 

"  That  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  being  of  a  Church,  so  that  under  no 
circumstances  of  exigency,  can  a  Church  exist  without  it ;  and  that,  therefore, 
all  societies  not  in  connection  with  a  Bishop  episcopally  consecrated,  are  no  part 
of  the  Catholic  Church ;  their  ordinances  being  invalid,  and  their  members  with 
no  hope  of  salvation,  save  in  what  are  called  '  the  uncovenanted  mercies  of 
God  ;'  we  do  not  hold  and  shall  not  teach.  Where  the  fundamental  truths  of 
Christianity  are  held,  Christ  Jesus  loved  in  sincerity,  and  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit 
plainly  manifested ;  though  we  may  lament  a  want  of  completeness  in  the  min- 
istry, and  pray  and  labor  that  the  defect  may  be  supplied,  yet,  we  neither  dare 
nor  desire  to  say  of  such,  that  they  are  not  of  '  the  blessed  company  of  all 
faithful  people ;'  '  members  of  the  mystical  body  of  Christ,'  which  is  His 
Church,"  &c4 

Similar  extracts  to  those  here  given  might  be  furnished  to  any 
extent.  It  is,  however,  unnecessary  to  multiply  them.  The  prac- 
tical tendency  and  actual  results  of  this  exhibit  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  Church  Episcopal,  is  what  now  concerns  us.  We  remark, 
then — how  natural,  how  reasonable,  to  infer,  in  the  light  of  such 
statements,    that  there  is  a  radical  difference    between  their 


thereunto  by  lavd"ul  authority.  And  therefore,  to  the  intent  that  these  Orders  may  be 
continued,  and  reverently  used  and  esteemed  in  this  Church,  no  man  shall  be  accounted 
or  taken  to  be  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  in  this  Church,  or  suffered  to  execute 
any  of  the  said  functions,  except  he  be  called,  tried,  examined,  and  admitted  thereunto 
according  to  the  form  hereafter  following,  or  hath  had  Episcopal  Consecration  or  Ordi- 
nation.'' 

*  The  Church  Universal,  p.  132. 

t  The  Prot.  Churchman^  Aug.  3,  1850. 

J  The  Frot.  Churchman,  Sept.  21,  1850. 


26 

theory  of  Prelacy  and  those  of  the  Uohartian  and  Tractarian 
schools.  Uence  it  is,  that  both  the  clergy  and  laity  of  "  other  de- 
nominations" habitually  sympathize  with  them  as  purely  Protest- 
ant and  evangelical ;  and  I  know  of  no  anti-prelatical  contro- 
vcrtist  who  has  not  conceded  to  them  these  points.  The  view 
current  among  them  is,  that  this  large  and  respectable  portion  of 
the  Church  Episcoj)al,  at  least  for  the  most  part,  is  in  doctrine 
Calvinistic,  and  that  their  views  of  the  ministry  are  so  nearly 
Presbyterian^  that  there  is  but  the  shade  of  a  shadow  of  dif- 
ference between  them.  But  the  question  is,  are  these  things 
so  f  An  answer  involves  the  necessity  of  a  reference — for  which 
we  must  claim  the  indulgence  of  the  reader  for  a  short  space— - 
to  the  history  of  the  nse,  etc.,  of  English  Episcopacy. 

Speaking  of  the  High  and  Low  Church  parties,  Hallam  says — 
"  About  the  end  of  William's  reign  [William  III.],  grew  up  the 
distinction  of  High  and  Low  Churchmen, — the  first  distinguished 
by  great  pretensions  to  sacerdotal  powers,  both  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral, by  a  repugnance  to  toleration,  and  by  a  firm  adherence  to 
Tory  principles  ;  the  latter  by  the  ojy-posite  characteristics."* 

But,  which  was  the^rs^,  in  the  order  of  time?  To  this  we  an- 
swer, the  Low  Church  party.  And  what  were  their  views  of  the 
orders,  powers,  etc.  of  the  ministry  ?  We  answer,  that,  Henry 
VIII.  having  thrown  off  the  Papal  yoke,  and  set  up  a  Church  of 
his  own  (and  of  which  he  and  his  successors  became  the  supreme 
head,  both  in  temporals  and  spirituals),  the  first  English  Reform- 
ers under  his  reign  and  that  of  Edward  VI.,  namel}^,  Cranmer 
and  his  coadjutors,  though  they  adopted  the  Episcopal  form  of  the 
ministry  in  the  three  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  as 
best  adapted  to  the  exigencies  of  the  "  Reformed  Church  of  Eng- 
land as  by  law  established,"  yet  placed  it,  not  on  tlie  ground  of 
prescriptive  or  divine  right,  but  of  expediency f  alone;  a  theory 

*  See  Hallam,  p.  623. 

•|  The  most  porfect  form  in  which  this  system  of  Episcopacy,  on  the  ground  of  expe- 
diency, now  extant,  is  that  adopted  by  that  targe  and  respectable  body — "TiiR  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  CinrRCH."  Take  in  illustration  the  following  extract  from  the  ''  Meth. 
Quarterly  Review'-  for  Jan.  184.'),  from  an  article  by  the  Rev.  Geo.  Peck,  D.D.,  on  the 
recent  controversy  between  the  Rev.  Drs.  Potts  and  Wainwright.     Dr.  Peck  says : — 

"  It  is  remarkable  that  the  note-writer,  who  takes  frequent  notice  of  the  Methodists, 
though  he  sometimes  classes  them  with  '  Mormons,'  and  all  sorts  of  fanatics,  still  arrays 
them  against  the  Presbyterians,  on  the  side  o^  Episcopalians.  Now  we  protest  against 
this  classification.  The  Methodists,  in  this  coinitry,  have  adopted  an  Episcopal  form  of 
government,  as,  according  to  Archbishop  Whateley,  they  had  a  perfect  right  to  do. 
But  Methodist  episcopacy  is  based  upon,  and  grows  out  of,  the  presbytery.     It  is  an 


27 

which,  whenever  and  wherever  it  has  obtained,  has  always  recog- 
nized and  advocated  the  absolute  eqitality  of  Presbyters  and  Bi- 
shops, hy  divine  right,  as  constituting  one  and  the  same  office.* 
And  in  doing  this,  they  but  threw  themselves  on  the  old  platform, 
on  which,  toward,  the  close  of  the  second  century,  this  theory  of 
episcopal  government  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  was  first 
adopted.  And,  I  would  here  remark  by  the  way,  that  their  action 
in  this  particular  furnishes  an  interpretation  of  the  testimony  of 
the  early  Fathers  on  this  subject,  which  has  tne  highest  claims  to 
the  respect  of  every  Anglican  and  Anglo-American  Churchman. 
These  authorities,  embracing  the  earliest  and  purest  writers  of  an- 
tiquity, are  given  at  large  in  the  following  Treatise : — Clem. 
Eomanus,  Ignatius,  Justin  Martyr,  Irenseus,  TertuUian,  Origen, 
Cyprian,  Firmilian,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  and  Jerome.  These 
testify  that  the  above-named  regimen  prevailed  in  the  Church 
(though  not  exclusively)  from  the  close  of  the  second  and  onward 
for  several  succeeding  centuries.  And,  to  their  testimony  may  be 
added,  to  the  same  effect,  that  of  all  the  Christian  churches  in  the 
world,  down  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation — the  African,  Greek, 
Western  or  Roman,  Lutheran,  German  Reformed,  French,  Wal- 
densian,  Scotch,  etc.f  And,  Anally,  as  to  the  adoption  by  the  first 
English  reformers,  of  this  theory  of  the  parity  of  Bishops  and 

official  relation  concerted  for  the  harmonious  action  of  the  great  itinerant  scheme,  and 
the  better  government  of  the  Church.  But  it  claims  no  divine  right  or  apostolical  succes- 
sion, as  these  things  are  understood  by  High  Churchmen,  for  its  basis.  In  the  great  con- 
troversy between  Presbyterians  and  Episcopalians,  upon  apostolical  succession,  we  sym- 
bolize with  the  former  and  not  with  the  latter.  Our  episcopacy  is  not  antagonistic  to 
Presbyterianism  as  we  understand  it,  but  is  the  very  modification  of  it  which  Baxter, 
Gillespie,  and  many  of  the  reformers  seemed  to  have  in  their  conceptions,  but  did  not 
realize  in  history.  An  exception  to  this  remark,  perhaps,  should  be  made  of  the  German 
Lutherans,  who  have  a  superintendency,  or  an  episcopacy,  somewhat  similar  to  ours. 
We  are  not,  then,  to  be  ranked  among  Episco^mlians,  when  the  great  essential  elements 
of  their  creed,  episcopacy  yitre  divino.  and  s.  personal  succession  of  Bishops  from  the  Apos- 
tles only  having  the  right  of  ordination,  are  taken  into  account.  We  are  at  war  with 
these  principles,  not  because  we  ivould  have,  but  cannot  obtain,  what  our  secessionists 
call  '  a  legitimate  episcopacy;'  but  because  we  believe  this  episcopacy  to  be  contrary  to 
Scripture,  and  destructive  of  true  Christian  unity.  No,  gentlemen ;  we  do  not  want 
your  '  succession.'  We  would  not  thank  you  for  it.  We  reject  it  as  a  usurpation,  and 
would  in  no  case  descend  to  accept  it  at  your  hands.  We  understand  what  our  note- 
writer  means  by  '  the  wishes  of  the  Methodists,  who  would  have  it  if  they  could,  and 
might  if  they  would.' — P.  12.  Now,  dear  Mr.  '  Anti-sectarian.'  we  wish  you  to  under- 
stand, if  indeed  you  are  capable  of  learning  anything,  that  '  the  Methodists'  have  no 
'  wishes'  for  your  'episcopacy,'  even  '  if  they  could'  have  it  without  price  ;  and  though 
they  knew  very  well,  before  they  were  told  by  you,  that  they  'might  if  they  would' 
join  your  church,  and  come  under  the  jurisdiction  of  your  episcopacy,  they  will  not  be 
very  likely  to  avail  themselves  of  that  gracious  proffer.  They  have  a  legitimate,  scrip- 
tural, primitive  episcopacy,  and  they  have  no  itching  to  exchange  it  for  one  whose  high- 
est boast  is  that  it  is  in  the  line  oi  Roman  popes. '" 

*  See  Part  If.  of  this  Treatise  on  this  subject. 

t  See  Part  III.  of  this  Treatise.     Chap.  X.,  Sec.  II.,  III.,  IV.,  V. 


28 

Presbyters^  jure  divino,  we  refer  tlie  reader  in  proof  to  two  acts, 
both  published  by  royal  authority, — ^the  first,  "  a  declaration  made 
of  the  functions  and  Divine  institution  of  Bishops  and  Priests," 
etc. ;  and  the  second,  "  A  declaration  of  the  Christian  doctrine  for 
ithe  necessary  erudition  of  a  Christian  man,"  etc.,  both  of  which 
will  be  found  in  this  Treatise,''^ 

But,  the  doctrine  of  the  perfect  identity  of  Bishops  and  Priests 
:as  a  "  Divine  institution,"  forms  the  corner-stone  in  the  founda- 
tion— the  key-stone  in  the  arch,  of  Preshyterianism. 

Ergo, — The  ministry  of  "  the  Reformed  Church  of  England  as 
by  law  established,"  was  Pkesbyteriajst  ! 

We  now  remark  that,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Chapin's  ipse  dixit  to  the  con- 
trary notwithstanding,  this  Presbyterial  form  of  ministry  in  the 
English  Church  remained  unaltered  from  the  year  1545  to  1662 — 
a  period  of  more  than  one  hundred  years — at  which  time  was 
passed  "  the  act  of  uniformity ^''^  so  called,  by  which,  no  person, 
unless  Episcopally  ordained,  was  allowed  to  hold  a  living  in  the 
English  Church.f  This  brings  the  history  of  this  affair  down  to 
.the  time  of  Laud.  True,  Bancroft,  Archbishop  Whitgift's  chap- 
lain, A.D.  1594,  and  Saravia  and  Sutcliflfe  before  him,  had  written 
against  Beza,  the  successor  of  Calvin,  who,  in  a.d.  1566,  had 
written  a  defense  of  ministerial  parity,  etc.  True  also,  that  Whit- 
gift  himself  joined  with  the  others  against  Beza.  But,  to  Arch- 
bishop Laud  belongs  the  honor  (a.d.  1604)  of  having  first  intro- 
duced the  doctrine  of  Episcopacy  by  divine  right  into  the  English 
Church. 

Two  other  facts  are  worthy  of  special  notice  in  this  connection. 
The  first  is,  that  during  the  above  interval,  that  is,  from  the  time 
of  Cranmer  down  to  "  the  act  of  uniformity,"  a  large  number  of 
ministers  with  no  other  than  Presbyterial  ordination  were  admitted 
to  livings  in  the  English  Church.  The  second,  that,  during  the  same 
interval,  the  Archbishops^  Bishoj^s^  and  Clergy  of  the  English  Church 
were^  in  doctrine,  thoroughly  Calvinistic. 

In  the  light  then  of  these  facts,  what  follows  ?  Why,  that  the 
original  principles  of  the  English  reformed  Church  consisted, 

1.  Of  the  adoption  of  Episcopacy  on  the  ground  of  expediency, 
as  a  mere  ecclesiastical  arrangement,  thereby  restoring  to  that 

*  See  Part  ITI,  of  this  Treatise,  Chap.  X.  Sec.  IV. 
t  Burnet's  History  of  his  own  Times,  Vol.  I.  p.  332. 


29 

cliurch  the  scriptural  and  primitive  parity  of  the  ministry — "  that 
priests  and  bishops,  by  God's  law,  ake  one  and  the  same  ;  and 
that  the  power  of  ordination,  etc.  belongs  equally  to  both."* 
And  hence, 

2.  Of  the  admission  of  the /aZZ  and  absolute  yahdity  of  the 
MINISTRY  of  the  foreign  Presbyterian  and  other  churches.     And, 

3.  Of  preaching  and  advocating  those  doctrines  of  grace  com- 
monly called  Calvinistic. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add,  that  the  original  compilers  of 
the  standards  of  that  church — the  liturgy  and  articles — fully  recog- 
nized "  the  church  character"  of  "  other  denominations." 

Thus  much  then  of  the  Low  Churchism  of  the  Anglican  Epis- 
copal Church,  during  the  first  century  of  her  existence. 

That  there  are  now,  in  the  Anglican  and  Anglo- American 
branches  of  that  church,  both  among  her  clergy  and  laity,  those 
who  still  adhere  to  these  original  principles,  we  admit.  But,  that 
that  large  body  which,  under  the  cognomen  of  Evangelico-Pro- 
testant  Low  Churchmen,  claim  to  be  the  representatives  of  those 
principles,  actually  repudiate  them,  we  shall  now,  regardless  of 
consequences  to  ourself,  proceed  to  show. 

First.  In  regard  to  the  article  of  their  alleged  Evangelicism. 
Now,  the  great  body  denominated  non-episcopal  of  all  names, 
taking  the  XXXIX  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  in  their 
natural  or  grammatical  sense,  understand  the  Vlth.,  which  treats 
^^  of  the  Sufficiency  of  Holy  Scripture  for  Salvation  f^  the  IXth., 
which  treats  "  of  Original  or  Birth-Sin  ;"  the  Xth.,  "  of  Free-  Willf^ 
the  Xlth,,  "  of  tlie  Justification  of  Man ;"  the  Xllth.,  "  of  Good 
WwksT  the  Xlllth.,  "o/  Worhs  before  Justification  f'  the  XVIth., 
"o/"  Sin  after  Baptism  f  and  the  XVIIth.,  "  of  Predestination  and 
Election ;"  the  XXVIIth.,  "  of  Baptism ;"  and  the  XXYIIIth., 
'■'■  of  the  Lord^s  Supper  f  as  inculcating  those  doctrines  of  grace 
denominated  Calvinism.  But,  is  this  the  sense  in  which  the 
party  claiming  that  appellation  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
understand  and  use  it  ?     We  submit  the  following  in  reply : 

The  Protestant  Churchman^  of  May  17,  1851,  in  an  article 
headed  the  "Pseudo-Evangelical  Party,"  quotes  with  approbation 
the  "remarks"  of  the  editor  of  the  Western  Episcopalian — the 

*  Buniet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  I ,  p.  372. 
t  The  organ,  as  is  known,  of  the  Low-Church  paity. 


30 

accredited  organ  of  the  Diocese  of  Ohio,  under  the  episcopal 
supervision  of  the  Right  Rev.  C.  P.  Mcllvaine,  D.D., — on  an  arti- 
cle in  Tlie  Churcliman  of  the  26th  ult.,  under  thd  head  "  Lim- 
ited Atonement,"  the  following.  The  editor  of  Tlie  CTiurch- 
inan  having  said,  "This  dogma"  (namely,  "Limited  Atonement") 
"  is  one  of  those  which  distinguishes  the  Pseudo-Evangelical 
party,"  etc. — meaning  the  Low  Church  party,  the  editor  of  the 
Western  Ejpiscopalian  remarks  as  follows : 

"  Here,  then,  we  are  furnished  with  a  criterion  by  which  we  can  ascertain 
who  are  members,  and  determine  the  extent  of  that  party  which  he  calls 
Pseudo- Evangelical.  It  does  not  exist  in  Ohio.  We  have  heard  many  Evan- 
gelical clergymen  preach,  have  heard  some  who  were  called  Calvinists,  and  some 
who  called  themselves  Calvinists,  though  the  number  is  small,  and  never  yet 
heard  from  an  Episcopal  pulpit  the  doctrine  of  a  '  limited  atonement.'  We 
therefore  think  the  'Pseudo-Evangelical  Party,'  at  which  The  Churchman  often 
sneers,  inust  be  a  very  small  one,  and  not  worth  his  notice.  As  a  candid  and  ho- 
norable man,  he  would  not  of  course  attempt  to  confound,  in  the  minds  of  his 
readers,  the  '  Pseudo-Evangelical  Party.'  Avith  the  evangelical  portion  of  the 
Church,  many  of  whose  prominent  men  are  noted  Arminians,  and  all  of  whom 
claim  no  higher  title  than  that  of  being  good  Bible  and  Prayer-Book  Church- 
men." 

Again.  In  the  Protestant  Churchman  of  July  12,  1851,  in 
a  communication  headed  the  "  Evangelical  Knowledge  Society," 
the  correspondent  is  defending  said  society  against  an  attack  from 
the  editor  of  The  Chitrchman,  who  represents  it  on  a  certain 
occasion  as  "  coming  near  to  explode."  The  occasion  alluded  to 
is  thus  explained.  The  "  E.  K.  S."  had  published  a  book  under 
the  title  of  "  The  Key  to  the  Prayer-Book,"  in  which  it  was  after- 
wards found  that  "  there  were  a  few  sentences  which  showed  the 
author  to  be  a  doctrinal  Calvinist,  as  it  is  now  known  and  admitted 
that  the  Reformers  were  TO  A  MAN."  Well,  what  was  done 
with  the  book  on  this  account  ?  Why,  this  writer  informs  us  that, 
"  at  the  next  annual  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Directors,  the  book 
being  objected  to  by  some,  it  was  promptly  withdrawn ,/"  and  that 
too,  though  in  other  respects  the  writer  declares  it  to  have  been 
"  a  most  excellent  book,  well  worthy  the  purchase  and  study  of* 
every  Churchman,"  etc. 

Here  then  is  a  "  Society,"  instituted  within  the  pale  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church,  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  promoting 
"Evangelical  Knowxedge"  within  its  bounds,  "PROMPTLY" 
throwing  aside  "a  most  excellent  book" — "A  Key  to  the 
Prayee-Book" — for  the  simple  reason  that  it  contained  "  a  few 


81 

sentences  whicli  showed  tlie  author  to  be  a  doctrinal  Calvinist," 
aje,  and  that  too,  though  "  it  is  now  known  and  admitted  that  the 
reformers  were  Galviuists,  even  TO  A  Mx\N !" 

Similar  extracts  might  be  addaced  from  the  same  source,  to 
almost  any  extent.  But,  "  a  word  to  the  wise  is  sufficient."  Not 
that  we  mean  to  affirm,  that  none  are  to  be  found  within  the  pale 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  who  are  truly  evangelical  and 
Protestant.  Such,  doubtless,  there  are,  as  we  have  said,  both 
among  the  clergy  and  laity  of  that  church.  But  we  do  affirm, 
that  that  "  number  is  small" — "  very  small."  We  also  affirm — • 
and  that  on  the  authority  of  the  Protestant  GJiurcliinan — ■ 

Second.  That  between  the  pkelatigal  theoey  of  that  "  very 
small  number,"  and  that  of  those  claiming  the  appellation  of 
"  Evangelical  Low  Churchmen,"  there  is  a  difference,  wide  as  the 
nether  i^oles.     Take  the  following  in  illustration : 

A  correspondent  of  that  journal,  in  an  article  bearing  date  May 
81,  1851,  under  the  head  of  "Diversity  of  Opinion  and  Liberty 
of  Action,"  in  treating  of  the  divisions  prevalent  in  "the  Church," 
says — "  It  is  not  to  be  denied  that  there  is  among  the  members  of 
the  Episcopal  Church  a  very  great  diversity  of  opinion."  In  classi- 
fying these,  he  divides  them  into — 

1.  Those  who  "  profess  to  hold  Episcopacy  on  the  ground  of  its 
expediency'''  only ;  and 

2.  Those  "  who  hold  a  sacramental  system^ 

These,  he  says,  are  the  two  "  extremes"  into  which  "  the  Church" 
is  divided.  But  between  these,  he  places  "several  other  classes," 
as — 

3.  Those  who  maintain  that  "  Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  per- 
fection of  a  church ;"  and 

4.  Those  who  take  the  ground  that  Episcopacy  is  essential  "  to 
the  existence  of  a  church." 

Now,  of  the  two  sects  or  parties  forming  the  "  extremes"  into 
which  "  the  Church"  is  divided,  this  writer  says  of  the  first^  that, 
"  to  hear  them  talk,  one  would  judge  that  it  was  any  thing  hut 
expedient  to  be  ruled  by  bishops,"  and  that  "  their  sympathies  are 
q}1  outside  of  the  body  to  which  they  are  nominally  attached,"  etc. 
"While  of  the  second^  he  says,  that  "their  sacramental  system  is 
difficult  to  be  distinguished  from  that  of  Kome,  the  sacraments 
being  made  by  it  the  sources  of  grace^  the  new-birth  universally  talcing 


32 

place  in  Baptism,  and  the  new-creature  being  nourished  in  the  Lord's 
/Supper."  They  also,  lie  adds,  "  substitute  the  visible  Church  in  the. 
place  of  its  Invisible  Head,''  etc. ;  a  distinction  this,  we  remark, 
which,  if  taken  in  connection  with  what  we  have  said  of  the  origi- 
nal principles  of  the  Anglican  Church,  is  precisely  analogous  to 
that  given  of  the  High  and  Low  Church  parties  by  Hallam. 
Again : 

Our  Correspondent,  in  speaking  of  the  other  two  classes — 
Nos.  3  and  4,  represents  them  as  being  "  within  the  extremes."  He 
certainly,  however,  cannot  mean  that  they  are  both  independent 
of  this  last  named  "  extreme."  At  least,  this  cannot  be  true  of 
No.  4,  or  those  who  take  the  ground — ^^ Nulla  ecclesia  sine 
episcopo" — that  "Episcopacy  is  essential  to  the  exktence  of  a 
church."  For,  in  speaking  of  them,  he  tells  us  that  they  "  believe 
in  the  especial  efficacy  of  the  sacraments"  etc.  And,  as  it  regards 
sect  No.  3,  he  tells  us  that  they  affirm  of  "  Episcopacy,"  that 
it  "  is  essential  to  the  perfection  of  a  church,"  etc.  But,  we  ask, 
What  is  the  difference  between  this  theory,  and  that  which  makes 
Episcopacy  ^^ essential  to  the  existence  of  a  church?"  In  other 
words,  of  what  value  is  an  existing  imperfect  church,  in  carrying 
out  the  designs  of  its  divine  Founder  ?  of  a  church  loanting  in 
those  very  essentials,  without  which  its  ministry  and  ordinances 
are  declared  to  be  invalid,  and  of  no  effect ?  "It  is  evident  unto 
all  men,"  therefore,  that  both  theories,  de  facto,  are  founded  on 
the  same  hypothesis— "iVwZ?a  ecclesia  sine  episcopo" — "  No  Chtibch 
WITHOUT  A  Bishop." 

Episcopal  bishops,  "essential  to  the  perfection  of  a  church." 
This,  then,  is  the  admitted  theory  of  the  so-called  Low  Church 
advocates  of  prelacy.  Hence,  as  we  find,  nothing  is  more  common 
in  their  writings,  when  speaking  of  the  constitution  of  "other 
denominations,"  than  to  represent  them  as  "  irregularly  formed," 
and  that  they  still  continue  "to  be  in  an  imperfect  state;"  that 
"  when  the  despotism  and  corruption  of  Rome  rendered  a  reforma- 
tion necessary,  and  the  awful  abuses  of  priestly  power  created  a 
natural  prejudice  against  the  whole  hierarchy,"  it  "made  it  easy 
for  the  conscientious  judgment"  of  such  of  the  continental  reform- 
ers as  Luther,  Calvin,  Beza,  Zwingle,  Melancthon,"  and  a  host  of 
others,  "  to  be  led  astray,"  and  hence,  as  a  gracious  act  of  their 
Christian  clemency,  under  the  pretext  that  the  ministry  is  "not  ot 


83 

the  essence,  but  only  of  the  order  of  the  church,"  they  are  pleased 
to  consider  that,  "  under  the  circumstances"  named  above,  "  the 
unnecessary  abandonment  of  the  apostolic  ministry,  although  still 
a  sin,"  is  "greatly  mitigated  in  the  judgment  of  reason,  as  well  as 
charity ;  and  the  indulgent  allowance  of  our  merciful  Eedeemer" 
may  "  well  be  supposed  to  pardon  the  deviation,  and  still  bestow 
his  blessing,"  etc.;*  and  especially  in  consideration  of  the  fact,  that 
the  great  Genevan  Reformer,  John  Calvin,  made  the  laudable 
though  unsuccessful  attempt  to  obtain  the  episcopacy  from  the 
English  bishops  !f  in  view  of  which,  and  in  the  hope  that  those  of 
the  present  day  who  sympathize,  with  the  Presbyterianism  of  that 
involuntary  schismatic,  are  not  entirely  beyond  the  reach  of  recov- 
ery, the  members  of  "  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Society  for  the 
promotion  of  Evangelical  Knowledge,"  inasmuch  as  they  deeply 
"lament  a  want  of  completeness  in  the  ministry"  among  them,  we 
have  the  very  encouraging  assurance  that  they  will  not  cease  to 
"  labor  and  pray  that  the  defect  may  be  supplied !" 

And  yet,  "  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  not  exclusive  I" 
How  then  comes  it  to  •  pass,  that  our  correspondent  of  the  Protestant 
Churchman,  already  introduced  to  the  reader's  notice  as  a  repre- 
sentative of  the  so-called  Low  Church  theory,  thus  summarily  dis- 
poses of  class  No.  1.  out  of  the  four  classes  into  which  he  has 
divided  the  aggregate  body  ? — those,  I  mean,  who,  placing  them- 
selves on  the  original  platform  of  the  English  Church,  "  hold  epis- 
copacy on  the  ground  of  expediency''^  only.  Having  informed  us 
that  these  constitute  "  a  small  number,"  he  adds,  "  and  we  wish 
it  were  smaller."  "  Their  sympathies"  being  "  all  outside  of  the 
body  to  which  they  are  nominally  attached,  we  often  wonder  they 
do  not  go  at  once  to  some  quarter"  [among  the  illegitimate  brood 
of  dissent]  "  better  suited  to  their  temperament."  For,  besides 
their  aversion  "to  be  ruled  by  Bishops,  they  can  discover  in  both 
the  doctrines  and  organization  of  the  Church  serious  errors,  and 
these  are  their  topics.  While  they  consider  rubrics  and  canons  of 
little  account,  they  are  fond  of  new  measures  for  doing  good,  and 
engage  more  readily  in  them  than  in  those  prescribed  by  authority 
and  of  immemorial  observances^     And,  we  here  observe,  that  this 

*  See  Bishop  Hopkins's  second  leUer  on  "  The  Novelties  which  Disturb  our  Peace," 
&c.     1844. 

t  For  a  full  vindication  of  that  renowned  reformer  from  the  imputation  of  this  state- 
ment, see  Appendix.     B. 

3 


34 

correspondent,  without  doubt,  is  right.     Consistency  requires  that 
they  should  do  so. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  this  writer  has  the  candor  to  admit,  that 
"  ALL"  the  other  "  classes,"  namely,  Nos.  2,  3  and  4,  '*  are  sincerely 
attached  to  the  Church  ;  that  they  love  the  Liturgy^  Episcopacy^  and 
the  cardinal  doctrines  of  the  Church ;"  and  having  repudiated  the 
Low  Church  principles  established  by  Cranmer  and  his  coadjutors 
in  the  English  Church,  we  respectfully  advise,  on  the  same  score 
of  consistency^  that  the  editors,  proprietors  and  patrons  of  the 
"Protestant  Ciiuechman"  cease  all  further  "agitation"  concern- 
ing questions  about  things  which  do  not  differ,  and  unite  henceforth  in 
co-operating  with  their  more  consistent  compeers  of  the  Tractarian 
school  in  the  Support  and  extension  of  true  Catholicity.  The 
propriety  of  such  a  course,  I  submit,  is  apparent  from  the  follow- 
ing considerations :  First,  Inasmuch  as,  on  the  one  hand,  there 
is  not  the  least  affinity  between  the  systems  of  ministerial  parity 
and  modern  prelacy,  and  hence  that  there  can  be  no  via  media  in 
regard  to  them,  the  former,  if  the  trv£  scriptural  regimen,  proving 
the  latter  to  be  false,  and  so  vice  versa.  So,  on  the  other  hand, 
Second :  If  the  theory  of  Prelacy  has  claims  which  are  founded  in 
prescriptive  or  divine  right,  those  claims  being  dependent,  in  the 
first  place,  on  the  fact  of  its  antitypal  relation  to  the  orders  in  the 
Levitical  Priesthood  ;  and  second,  in  the  fact  of  its- appointment  by 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  it  follows, — 
that  any  attempt  to  escape  the  consequences  of  its  adoption,  such, 
for  example,  as  the  denunciatory,  exclusive  and  unchurching 
dogma  of  the  Tractarians,  through  a  via  media  by-way,  is  as  "a 
house  divided  against  itself"  That  the  doctrinal  and  practical 
workings  of  the  theory  of  Prelacy,  as  advocated  by  the  so-called 
Evangelical  Low  Church  sect,  furnishes  ample  proof  of  this,  we 
need  go  no  further  for  evidence  than  that  given  in  the  extracts 
from  their  writings  on  pages  23-25.     Take,  for  example. 

First:  That  from  the  "Church  Universal,"  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Stone.  Now,  that  learned  divine,  it  is  presumed,  would  be  slow 
to  allow  that  the  church  of  which  he  is  a  minister  is  not  Christ's 
Church.  But,  then,  if  we  understand  him,  it  is  indispensable  that 
the  phrase  "  Christ's  Church"  be  inserted  in  the  Preface  to  the 
Ordinal,  in  order  to  make  good  the  allegation,  that  it  unchurches 
others,  etc.     "  The  word  '  Christ's,'  instead  of  '  this,'  "  says  he, 


35 

"  would  have  made  a  vast  difference  of  meaning,"  that  is,  it  would 
have  been  equivalent  to  saying  that  his  church  was,  par  excellence^ 
"  the"  Church ;  which,  he  adds,  '*  would  not  only  make  her,  in 
theory^  unchukch  a  considerable  portion  of  Christendom,  but  also 
pledge  her  to  carry  the  unchukciiing  edict  into  practice."  But 
this,  he  adds,  "  I  repeat,  till  she  loses  her  Protestantism,  she  cannot 
be  made,  by  her  high  authorities,  to  declare,"  etc.*  What  then 
must  be  the  astonishment  of  the  reader  when  informed  that  this 
very  phrase,  viz.,  "  Christ's  Church,"  stands  out  in  bold  stereo- 
typed relief  in  that  very  "  Preface,"  and  that  it  precedes  the  word 
"  this"  ?  "  It  is  evident,"  says  this  document,  "  unto  all  men  dili- 
gently reading  holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,  that,  from  the 
Apostle's  times,  there  have  been  these  orders  of  ministers  in 
CHRIST'S  CHURCH  :  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons,"  etc. ; 
*'  and,  therefore,  to  the  intent  that  these  orders  may  be  continued 
and  reverently  used  and  esteemed  in  ^A?^,"  that  is,  "  in  Christ's 
Church,"  etc.  Here,  evidently,  the  word  "  this,"  being  a  "  dis- 
tinctive adj€ctive,^^-f  is  the  "  substitute'^  of  the  word  "  Christ's." 
Ergo,  Dr.  Stone's  Church,  in  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  is 
alleged  to  be  "  the"  Church  of  Christ,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others  I 
But  Dr.  Stone  says  that  his  Church  cannot  unchurch  others,  "  till 
«^  loses  her  Protestantism.""  But,  if  our  criticism  as  above  be  cor- 
rect, what,  I  ask,  according  to  Dr.  Stone's  hypothesis  of  the 
*'  Preface,"  becomes  of  her  "  Protestantism"  ?     Pass  we  now, 

Second:  To  the  quotation  from  Bishop  Burgess's  Episcopal 
Charge  on  page  23  :  "A  Catholic  feeling,"  says  he,  "  embraces 
all  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Catholic  organism 
embraces  all  who  have  been  baptized  into  Christ ;  and  both  are 
hostile  to  a  narrow,  miserable  spirit  of  sectarian  contention." 
"  Never  has  it,"  that  is,  "  the  name  Catholicity,"  "  been  more  per- 
verted than  when  it  has  been  made  to  designate  exclitsiveness,^^  etc. 
But  does  the  Bishop  here  mean  to  admit  that  those  who  have  been 
baptized  by  a?i^i-prelatical  hands,  have  been  so  "baptized  into 
Christ,"  as  that  they  belong  to  the  "  Catholic  organism"  of  which 
he  here  speaks?  Such,  clearly,  is  the  inference  into  which  the 
reader  is  betrayed.  ^^All  Christians,"  says  he,  "believe  that  all 
Christians  have  such  fellowship,"  that  is,  the  "  Catholic  feeling"  and 

*  The  Church  Universal,  p.  132,  and  note, 
t  See  Webster's  large  Dictionary  on  the  word. 


36 

the  "  Catholic  organism"  are  commensi'rate.  Any  other  view  of 
"  Catholicity"  is  "  made  to  designate  eocclusiveness"  But  let  the 
reader  go  on  a  little  further  and  he  will  find  in  the  same  '*  Charge" 
the  following :  "  The  excellency  of  our  Church,"  says  that  pre- 
late, /'is,  not  that  it  stands  apart  as  a  sect  claiming  to  he  purer 
than  all  others."  Oh,  no;  "but  that  it  is,  in  fact,  the  kepkesen- 
TATivE  of  that  Church  which  once  included  all  Christians  of  our 
language  and  lineage.  "  Ilaving,"  he  adds,  "  never  abandoned  that 
position,  IT,  that  is,  "  Our  Church,"  "  is  still  the  parent,  the  basis, 

THE  BULWARK  OF  ALL  THEIR  RELIGION,  AND  UNITES  THEM,  THROUGH 
A  FAITH  TRANSMITTED  FROM  THE  BEGINNING,  AND  THROUGH  SaCRA- 
MENTS,  IN  AN  EQUALLY  LONG  SUCCESSION,  TO  THE  ORIGINAL  FELLOW- 
SHIP OF  THE  Apostles,"  etc,  "Mirabile  dictu !"  It  turns  out, 
then,  after  all,  that  those  baptized  by  anz^i-prelatisls,  belong  to  the 
true  "  Catholical  organism"  in  no  other  sense  than  that  of  their  de- 
riving, "  through  the /fecramente*  o/"  the  Church  Eiiiscopal  KLiL 
THEIE  EELIGION!"  Yes,  "IT"— the  Church  Episcopal— is 
"  the  parent,  the  basis,  the  bulwark"  of  ALL  !  !  And  that,  through 
a  "  long  succession,^''  traced  back  "  to  the  original  fellowship  of  the 
Apostles" !  !  !  How  liberal !  how  magnanimous  !  how  Catholic  ! 
Such  a  theory  of  Prelacy  justly  chargeable  with  '■'■  exclusiveness^^  ! 
The  thought,  surely,  could  never  enter  the  heads  of  any  but  such 
as  are  dupes  to  the  blindness  and  bigotry  of  Presbyterianism, 
who  ought  rather  to  thank  God  that  their  salvation  is  rendered  at 
least  possible,  if  not  certain,  by  being  thus  charitably  encircled 
within  the  ea-pansive  embrace  of  their  Episcopal  "Parent  !" 

Nor  is  the  Low  Church  Bishop  Burgess  alone  in  thus  disposing 
of  "other  denominations."  In  a  recent  work  in  answer  to  the 
question,  "  What  is  the  Church  of  Christ  V  and  which  comes  to 
us  under  the  imprimatur  of  the  Tractarian  Bishop  of  Maryland 
(Whittingham),  the  writer,  having  argued  that  the  Church  is  not 

*  Hence,  the  ground  of  the  assumption,  by  a  large  body  of  prelatists — and  which,  in 
the  earlier  part  of  my  connection  with  that  church,  I  myself  adopted— of  the  total  in- 
validity of  Presbyterian,  which  they  esteem  no  other  than  lay  baptism.  This  theory, 
however,  is  supposed  to  be  confined  entirely  to  the  Tractarian  and  Hobartian  sects. 
Not  so.  Of  this  class  is  the  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng,  D.D.,  the  rector  of  St.  George's  Church, 
Stuyvesant  square.  Whether  that  reverend  gentleman  carries  out  his  theory  practically 
to  ALL  the  proselytes  from  Presbyt'-rianism  admitted  to  his  church, — why,  he  may,  or 
he  may  not.  Those  who  are  sufficiently  interested  in  the  matter  can  ask  him.  My  pre- 
sumption is,  that  as — if  I  am  rightly  informed — he  occasionally  dispenses  with  the 
requisition,  from  such,  of  even  the  rite  of  confirmation,  when  it  would  prove  a  bar  to 
their  uniting  themselves  with  his  church,  he  may  possibly  observe  the  same  rule  with 
regard  to  baptism. 


37 

a  "class,"  but  a  "  society,"*  assumes  the  hypotliesis  that  "  the 
Church  Catholic"  is  "  not  distinct  from  particular  churches,"  all  of 
which  "must  be  associated  into- one."  He  then  proceeds  to  the 
inquiry",  "  in  what  consists  that  unity  which  brings  us  all  together 
and  makes  us  all  oneT^  To  which  he  answers,  "It  consists  not 
in  meeting  together ;  not  in  similarity  of  forms  and  rites ;  not 
in  similarity  of  faith ;  not  in  unanimity ;  not  in  supremacy  of 
one  head  bishop,"  etc.f  But  "  this  principle  of  oneness  con- 
sists in  their  origin" — "  it  is  the  having  one  beginning,  the 
descent  from  one  origin. ":j;  And  this  "  union  must  he  based 
on  transmission  or  descent  —  one  of  siiGcessionyi  And  thus, 
says  he,  "  they  are  all  derived  from  the  parent  clubj^%  He  then 
proceeds  to  state  that  "  an  overt  act,  whereby  the  Church  is  re- 
nounced^ is  plainly  the  setting  up  or  the  joining  a  sOciet}'-  which, 
not  being  one  with  the  Church  by  lawful  succession  from  the 
founder,  Christ,  yet  claims  to  be  regarded  as  if  it  were  a  portion 
of  the  Church  of  Christ."  For,  says  he,  "we  cannot  profess  two 
faiths^''"'  though  he  had  a. little  before  said  that  the  principle  of  the 
Church's  unity  "  consisted  not  in  similarity  of  faithj''  etc. ;  "  or 
belong,  as  it  were,  to  two  churches^  What  then  ?  Oh,  says  he, 
"  we  must  still  account  them  within  the  pale  of  the  Churchy  if  they 
have  been  validly  received  into  it  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism.'''''^ 
Otherwise,  he  argues,  that  "  Baptism,"  being  "  initiator}^,"  it  would 
be  wholly  at  variance  with  the  apostolic  declaration,  that  there  is 
one  Baptism  ;  for  it  would  increase  the  number  of  baptisms  to  the 
number  of  the  particular  churches  into  which  the  holy  rite  ad- 
mitted new  members.**  The  above  "  overt  act,"  therefore,  of 
separation  from  the  Church  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  these 
dissenting  schismatics  all  having  received  the  "  one  baptism"  at 
the  hand  of  one  "  who  lav  fully'''  (or  validly)  "  administers  bap- 
tism, "ff  prior  to  said  separation,  whj^,  they  are  all  safe.  We 
"account  them"  ALL  "within  the  pale  of  the  Church."  And, 
this  being  "  a  c^wrc/i-member,  and  at  the  same  time  member  of  a 
society  which  is  not  a  church,"  this  immaculate  prelatieal  logician, 
Mr.  Hill,  would  have  all  to  know,  "is  nothing  inconsistent  or  con- 
tradictory":}::]: !         I  remark,  in  conclusion,  that,  from  the  striking 

*  "What  is  the  Church  of  Christ?"     By  George  Hill,  Shrivenham,  Eng.    Pub.  by 
Brunner,  Bait.,  Maryland.     1844.     pp.  11-18. 

t  lb.    pp.    34-48.  \   lb.  pp.   48,   &c.     ||   lb.  p.  .-53.         (j  lb.  .'53. 

T  lb.  pp.  102-104.  **  lb.  p.  20.  tt  lb.  p.  24.        \\   lb.  p.  105. 


similarity  both  of  thought  and  language  which  mark  the  extracts 
from  these  two  writers,  there  is  strong  ground  for  suspicion  that 
Bishop  Burgess's  tlieory  of  Chureh-Catholicitj  was  borrowed  from 
the  Tractarian,  Mr.  Ilill. 

But,  by  advancing  a  step  further,  it  will  be  found  that  the 
lioinish  Churchy  in  the  plenitude  of  her  charity^  claims  to  embrace, 
within  her  capacious  pale,  the  schismatical  subjects  of  the  so-called 
"  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established,"  and  with 
them  all  those  of  the  so-called  dissenting  sects.  Thus,  the  Roman 
Catholic  Bishop  Purcell :  "  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  admits 
all  sinners  to  repentance.  She  counts  as  belonging  to  her  commu- 
nion all  the  children  hajitized  in  Protestant  communions,  who 
die  before  they  are  capable  of  committing  mortal  sin,  or  who,  liv- 
ing in  invincible  ignorance  that  they  have  been  bred  up  in  error, 
keep  the  commandments  of  God,  and  love  him,  as  far  as  their 
knowledge  of  the  divine  nature  will  permit.  All  these  belong  to 
the  soul  of  the  Churchy  and  a/i^e  consequently  among  the  most 

PEECIOUS  OF  HER  FOLD,"*  &C. 

It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  pursue  this  subject  further.  Enough 
has  been  said  to  disclose  the  real  purpose  and  end  of  the  so- 
called  Evangelical  or  Low  Church  advocates  of  prelacy  in  the  adop- 
tion of  that  mode  which  characterizes  the  advocacy  of  their  theory. 
Stripped  of  its  sophistical  guise,  it  is  found  to  be  precisely  identical 
with  the  Hobartian,  Tractarian  and  Romish  schemes  of  the  same 
systeni.  To  pretend  that  the  theory  of  ministerial  parity,  and 
that  of  modern  prelacy,  as  advocated  by  Low  Churchmen,  are  but 
'''•partially  separated"  by  "  a  slight  diversity ;"  that  the  "  Preface" 
to  the  Ordinal,  on  the  hypothesis  of  Dr.  Stone,  does  not  "  unchurch 
a  considerable  portion  of  Christendom ;"  and  that  it  is  free  from 
the  charge  of  an  "  arrogant  assumption  of  spiritual  and  priestly 
power, — those  "  extravagant  claims  of  exclusive  government  and 
priestly  power  and  grace"  which  they  allege  holds  true  against 
the  Hobartian,  Tractarian  and  Romish  theories,  and  that  therefore 
they  cannot  "  go  through  Christendom  and  dogmatically  deter- 
mine which  so-called  churches  are  true  and  which  are  flilse;"  nor 
affirm  that  "all  societies  not  in  connection  with  a  bishoj:)  episco- 
pally  consecrated,  are  no  part  of  the  Catholic  Church,  their  ordi- 
nances being  invalid^  etc.  :  while  at  the  same  time  they  affirm 

*  See  Debate  with  Campbell  on  the  Roman  Catholic  Religion.    Cincinnati,  1837.    p.  72. 


of  their  churcli  that,  upon  the  combined  authority  of  "holy- 
Scripture  and  ancient  authors,"  she  teaches  that  "  it  is  evident 
unto  all  men^^  "  what  conditions  are  necessary  to  constitute  Chris- 
tian societies  trvs  churches f  and  that  their  Church  is  "the 
PARENT,  the  BASIS,  the  BULWARK  of  ALL  THE  EELIGION"  pos- 
sessed by  their  a^i^t'-episcopal  neighbors,  and  claim  that  they  are 
all  "  united  to  thcjn  through  a  faith  transmitted  from  the  begin- 
ning through  sacraments  in  an  equally  long  succession,"  back  "  to 
the  original  fellowship  of  the  Apostles,"  etc. ;  such  a  system,  I 

AFFIRM,    CAN    ONLY   BE   DESIGNED   FOE   PURPOSES   OF    DECEPTION   AND 

FRAUD  !  And,  of  all  the  extant  theories  of  human  device,  calcu- 
lated, as  I  have  said,  "  by  good  words  and  fair  speeches  to  deceive 
the  hearts  of  the  simple,"  this  theory  of  prelacy,  thus  disguised 
under  a  Protestant  Evangelical  garb,  holds  the  foremost  rank.  IT 
IS  THE  MOST  POWERFUL  CONFEDERATE  OF  THE  RO- 
MISH DELUSION!  Pius  the  IXth  well  understands. the  good 
service  which  it  renders  to  his  cause,  in  undermining  the  hulwarks 
of  "  REAL  Protestantism,"  both  in  England  and  in  our  own  coun- 
try. To  it  alone,  I  affirm,,  is  he  indebted  for  his  recent  success  in 
planting,  in  the  very  center  of  the  so-called  "  Protestant  Church 
of  England  as  by  law  established,"  an  Archiepiscopal  See,  with 
its  twelve  Bishoprics !  And,  from  the  present  aspect  of  things, 
his  holiness,  doubtless,  entertains  good  hope  of  witnessing  similar 
results  from  the  same  influences  now  so  rife  in  our  midst ! 

Presbyterians,  do  you  demur  to  this  statement  of  what  I  affirm 
as  the  real  cause  of  the  past  and  present  progress  of  Romanism  in 
the  midst  of  us  ?  I  appeal  then  to  facU^  and  ask :  How  do  you 
account  for  the  vast  accessions  from  your  "  ranks  "  to  those  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  ?  Episcopalians,  in  advocating  their  system, 
triumphantly  point  to  "  the  testimony  of  rio?z-Episcopalians  "  in  its 
favor,  as  derived  from  "  ilie  number  of  the  strongest  and  best  men^  out 
of  the  Episcopal  Churchy  who  are  entering  her  foldj'^  On  this  subject, 
a  recent  writer  says : — "  The  leaven  is  silently  but  powerfully  at 
work.  Truth  is  pervading  the  great  mass  of  society.  Prejudice 
is  becoming  disarmed,  and  here  and  there  one,  contimMxlly,  are 
silently,  and  sometimes  at  great  sacrifices,  giving  in  their  strongest 
testimony  in  favor  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  even  the  testimony  of 
their  life.  The  following  facts,"  he  adds,  "  will  speak  for  them- 
selves : — Of  the  American  Bishops  who  have  joined  the  Church 


40 

from  other  denominations,  arc  the  following — Jarvis,  Provoost, 
Bass,  Chase,  Brownell,  Kavenscroft,  Smith,  Otey,  [and  to  these  he 
might  have  added  Griswold,  McHvaine,  and  McCroskey.]  Of  two 
hundred  and  eighty-five  persons,  ordained  by  Bishop  Griswold  be- 
fore 1841,  two  hundred  and  seven  came  into  the  ministry  of  the 
Episcopal  Church,  from  other  denominations.  At  least  two-thirds 
of  the  clergy  of  the  Church,  in  this  country,  are  not  educated  Epis- 
copalians. And  within  the  last  thirty  years,  about  three  hundred 
ministers  of  other  denominations  have  entered  the  ministry  of  the 
Episcopal  Church."  (Bishop  De  Lancey's  sermon  at  the  consecration 
of  Bishop  Eastburn,  p.  34.)  "  The  rapid  advances  of  church  prin- 
ciples among  the  Laity,"  continues  this  writer,  "  is  another  strong 
argument  of  the  same  character." — (Extracted  from  Reasons  Why 
I  am  a  Churchman,  p.  21,  1844.)  In  illustration  of  this  fact,  it  is 
only  necessary  to  state,  that,  if  rightly  informed,  of  one  single 
church — and  that  the  largest  in  this  city,  St.  George's,  Stuyvesant 
square — out  of  about  six  hundred  communicants,  by  far  the  greater 
portion  is  made  up  of  proselytes  from  Presbyterian,  Reformed 
Dutch,  and  Methodist  and  Baptist  churches. 

Then  again.  I  affirm  that,  so  far  as  the  article  of  Intant- 
Church-Membekship  by  Baptism  is  concerned,  it  is  to  be  traced 
to  a  radical  difference^  doctbinally,  between  "the  Church"  and 
their  so-called  "  w?i!ra-Protestant "  neighbors,  regarding  the  nature, 
design,  and  end  of  Baptism.  Of  this  I  propose  to  furnish  the 
proof  as  drawn  exclusively  from  the  practical  use  of  that  ordinance, 
by  both  bodies.  The  circumstances  under  which  it  is  practically 
and  habitually  applied  to  the  infant  recipient,  is  the  key  to  its  doc- 
trinal interpretation,  as  held  by  the  respective  administrators.  Of 
the  difference  then  of  which  I  here  speak,  as  characteristic  of  "the 
doctrine  of  baptism,"  episcopal  and  anti-episcopal,  the  Low  Church 
evangelical  Bishop  Burgess,  in  his  recent  charge  on  "  Great  Prin- 
ciples," etc.,  alluding  to  its  administration  by  the  latter,  says,  that 
it  is  founded  on  the  principle  of  "  LiMrrATioN."  This  is  true.  In 
chap,  xxviii.  of  "  the  Confession  of  Faith,"  on  the  Article  of  "  bap- 
tism," the  IVth  section  reada  thus :  "  Not  only  those  that  do  ac- 
tually profess  faith  in,  and  obedience  unto  Christ,  but  also  the 
infants  of  one  or  both  believing  parents  are  to  be  baptized."  The 
article  clearly  limits  the  right  of  baptism  to  the  "  infants "  of 
*'  believing  parents" — that  is,  "  one  or  both  of  the  parents,"by  a  cred- 


41 

ible  profession  of  their  faith,  miist  be  communicants  of  the  Church, 
to  entitle  their  infants  to  baptism. 

But  this  principle  of  "  limitation,"  the  Church  Episcopal  con- 
demns. "  Wide  is  the  gate,  and  broad  is  the  way"  which  she  opens 
to  her  baptismal  font.  The  children  of  Jews,  Turks  and  Infidels, 
together  with  those  who  are  nominally  Christian  (and  such  the 
"  other  denominations"  hold  to  be  all  the  non-communing  baptized 
members  of  their  respective  churches),  are  alike  admitted  to  its 
benefits.  On  what  ground?  "  Oh,"  says  the  evangelical  Bishop 
Burgess,  "  inasmuch  as,  by  a  numerous  portion  of  surrounding 
society" — namely,  Presbyterian  pedobaptists — "these  holy  institu- 
tions"— namely,  the  sacraments — "are  viewed  as  merely' a  kind  of 
profession  of  higher  holiness  ;  a  profession  acceptable,  if  faithful ; 
needless,  if  not  absolutely  compelled  by  the  strongest  feeling;" — 
that  is,  as  arising  from  a  sense  of  religious  obligation,  etc.,  I,  the 
apostohcal  bishop  of  Maine,  would  have  all  to  know,  that  we  Epis- 
copalians "  hold  it  wiser  to  jperfornii  what  we  never  promised^  than 
to  promise  what  we  may  fail  to  jperformP 

Profound  theology  this !  and  so  consistent  withal !  As  though 
a  "  promise,"  or  "  vow,"  on  the  part  of  an  adult,  or  by  him  in  be- 
half of  the  infant  or  child,  were  not  a  component  pakt  of  bap- 
tism! Not  to  speak  of  "other  denominations,"  look  at  the  pro- 
fessions and  vows  required  and  entered  into,  as  set  forth  in  the 
three  haptismal  offices  of  the  American  liturgy.  Or,  have  the  Bishop 
of  Maine  and  his  clergy  commenced  the  work  of  reformation,  by 
expungirig  from  their  baptismal  offices  all  professions  and  vows 
whatsoever  ?  The  above  language  of  his  right  reverence  certaiply 
implies  that  he,. with  his  presbyters  and  deacons,  regards  the  above 
professions  and  vows  at  most  as  a  dead  letter. 

Well  then,  we  have  at  length  arrived  at  this  point.  The  absence 
of  a  "promise"  or  vow  by  a  "  parent,"  etc.,  is  no  bar  to  the  bap- 
tism (in  the  Ejiiscopal  Church)  of  an  "  infant."  Indeed,  so  far 
from  it,  the  chances  are  rather  in  favor  of  the  more  effectual  reli- 
gious training  of  the  child!  The  zeal  of  the  "parent"  in  this 
work  is  increoysed,  just  in  proportion  as  he  finds  himself  relieved 
from  the  trammels  of  a  religious  vow,  such  as  that  imposed  by  the 
"  limitation"  principle  of  Presbyterians,  which,  the  bishop  tells  us, 
leads  "at  length"  to  "  2i practical  indifference  to  all  things  in  reli- 
gion which  are  outward  and  visible,  an  indifference  not  seldom 


42 

disguised  under  the  appearance  of  an  excessive  exaltation  of  tteir 
sanctity,  by  an  "  attempt  to  vindicate"  for  their  "  communions  a 
character  of  unmixed  purity,"  etc. 

Is  it  then,  I  ask,  any  marvel  that,  with  such  seductive  blandish- 
ments to  entice  them,  the  Church  Episcopal  should  secure  to  her- 
self such  vast  accessions  from  among  the  nori'Com'muning  baptized 
members  of  anti-prelsitical  churches,  who,  with  the  path  thus 
smoothed  down  before  them,  can  secure  that  for  their  children 
within  h^r  pale,  which  the  scriptural  requisitions  of  their  own 
Church  withhold? 

It  is,  however,  the  nature,  design,  and  end  of  baptism, — in  other 
words,  its  efficacy  in  a  doctrinal  point  of  view,  as  educed  from 
its  practical  application  as  above,  which  most  concerns  us.  As 
administered  anti-prelatically  on  the  principle  of  "  limitations^''  it 
proceeds  on  the  hypothesis  of  a  denial  of  the  opus  operatum  of 
that  ordinance.  In  other  words,  it  repudiates  the  Romish  dogma 
of  BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION.  Vicwiug  baptism  as  a  means  to  an 
end^  it  proceeds  throughout  on  the  ground,  that  spiritual  qualifica- 
tions on  the  part  of  the  "  parent"  are  indispensable,  under  God,  to 
secure  those  gracious  benefits  to  the  "infant,"  of  which  its  baptism 
is  a  sign  and  sealP*  It  teaches  that,  although  "  by  the  right  use 
of  this  ordinance  the  grace  promised  is  not  only  offered,  but  really 
exhibited  and  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  such  (whether  of 
age  or  infants)  as  that  grace  belongeth  unto,  according  to  the  coun- 
sel of  God''s  own  will^''  yet  that  its  conferment  is  reserved  to  "  his 
appointed  time^''  and  affirms,  expressly,  that  "  the  efficacy  of  bap- 
tism IS  NOT  TIED  TO  THAT  MOMENT  OF  TIME  W^HEREIN  IT  IS  ADMIN- 
ISTERED."! Hence  its  uniform  language  to  those  who,  though 
baptized,  yet  give  no  credible  evidence  of  spiritual  regeneration. 
"  But  unto  the  wicked  God  saith,  What  hast  tliou  to  do  to  declare 
my  statutes,  or  that  thou  shouldest  take  my  covenant  in  thy 
mouth  ?  seeing  thou  hatest  instruction,  and  castest  my  words  be- 
hind thee."  • 

Now,  that  \}ci&  opposite  to  this  "doctrine  of  baptism,"  or  the  opv^ 
opcratum  theory  of  baptismal  regeneration,  results  from  its  un- 
limited application  by  the  Episcopal  Church,  is  evident  from  the 
fact  of  its  dispensing  with  the  spiritual  qualifications  of  the  pa- 

(1)  Ps.  50  :  16,  17. 
♦  Conf.  of  Faith,  Chap.  XXVIII.,  Sec.  I.  t  lb.,  Sec.  VI. 


rent  as  required  in  the  former  case.  This  very  circumstance,  of 
itself  I  contend,  imbues  the  mind  of  the  "  parent"  with  a  sort  of 
ideal  efficacy  of  that  rite.  And,  happy  in  finding  himself  relieved 
of  responsibilities  which  he  feels  it  would  be  profane  for  him  to 
assume,  or  if  assumed,  that  they  are  only  in  conformity  with  ritual 
usage ;  and  proud  of  the  privilege  of  placing  his  child  on  a  com- 
mon footing  with  the  covenant  "  seed"  of  the  Church ;  under  this 
persuasion  he  presents  them  to  their  baptismal  font. 

But  it  is  denied  by  the  so-called  Low  Church  or  evangelical  ad- 
vocates of  prelacy,  that  they  administer  baptism  in  that  sense. 
Do  they  then,  I  ask,  administer  the  ordinance  on  a  moj'e  limited 
scale  than  that  of  the  High  Churchman,  the  Tractarian,  or  the 
Komanist  ?  So  far  from  it,  all  proceed  on  the  principle  that,  to  do 
so,  would  involve  the  grossest  act  of  schism  agkinst  the  standard 
doctrine  of  their  baptismal  office.  The  measure  of  their  failure  to 
reconcile  their  denial  of  the  ojous  operatum  of  the  rite  with  their 
unlimited  extension  of  it  to  all,  is  the  general  prevalence  of  the 
opus  operatum  dogma  within  their  pale.  On  this  subject  Dr. 
Aydelott,  already  quoted,  speaking  of  the  different  theories  which 
have  obtained  in  the  Episcopal  Church  regarding  it,  says  that 
there  are  applied  to  it  the  "  three  constructions"  following,  viz. : 
the  first  "  is  the  doctrine  of  the  opus  operatum  applied  to  baptism," 
which  "  explains  it  as  teaching  that  every  subject  of  baptism  is 
thereby  spiritvxilly  regeneratedP  The  second  holds  it  "  as  teaching 
only  an  ecclesiastical  regeneration  ;  that  is,  a  change  of  circumstances, 
a  transfer  by  this  solemn  rite  from  the  world  to  the  Church,  etc. 
The  "  third  class  maintain,  that  neither  a  spiritual  nor  an  ecclesi- 
astical regeneration  is  taught  in  the  baptismal  office,  as  taking  place 
at  the  administration  of  the  rite,"  but  that  it  ''is  clearly  hypotheti- 
cal^ etc. ;  which  last  is  that  adopted  by  our  Low  Church  author,* 
who  tells  us  that  "  this  view  of  the  baptismal  office  has  a  large 
number  of  supporters,"  etc.f 

And  yet  this  very  learned  divine  speaks  thus  of  this  identical 
^^  baptismal  office'^  : — "  There  is  certainly,"  says  he,  "  no  part  of  the 
prayer-book  so  open  to  objection  as  this ;  none  that  has  so  grieved 

*  I  would  here  remark,  for  the  information  of  the  reader,  that  the  above  and  all  that 
follows,  in  connection  with  the  name  of  Dr.  Aydelott,  was  penned  before  his  secession  fronri 
the  Episcopal  Church.  As  the  use  I  make  of  the  quotations  from  his  book  but  speak 
the  sentiments  of  those  represented  by  him  therein,  they  are  retained  unaltered. 

t  Condition  and  Prospects  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  pp.  112-115. 


44 

the  hearts  of  good  men  from  the  very  first.  In  a  ministry,  little 
short  of  thirty  years,"  lie  adds,  "  the  writer  has  never  conversed 
upon  the  service  with  an  intelligent,  pious  lay  member  of  our 
Church,  whether  male  or  female,  who  did  not  express  regret  at 
some  of  the  exjjressions  employed  in  it ;  neither  has  he  met  with 
a  clergyman,  at  all  evangelical  in  character,  who  did  not  profess 
a  desire  to  see  some  change  in  it,  etc.*  Nor  is  this  all.  Speaking 
of  the  character  and  tendency  of  his  own  theory  of  that  "  baptismal 
office,"  and  which  he  declares  to  be  "  so  clearly  liypotlietical^''  he 
says : — 

**  "We  cannot  but  confess,  that  we  regard  a  form  of  baptism  in- 
volving SUCH  AN  HYPOTHESIS,  as,  to  say  the  least,  VERY  PERIL- 
OUS. Carefully  thinking,  pious  men  may  not  be  placed  in  much 
hazard  by  the  use  of  it ;  but  the  great  mass  of  the  people  will, 
we  fear,  be  continually  liable  to  put  a  positive  construction  upon  the 
service,  and  thus  be  in  danger  of  either  running  into  the  Popish 
doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration^  or  of  rejecting  the  service  as 
Popish,  and  ultimately  quitting  the  Church  altogether  ;f  or,  after 
struggling  for  light  on  the  subject  a  while  in  vain,  of  settling  down 
contented  with  no  clear,  definite  views  whatever."  And  he  adds  : 
"  In  this  last  state  we  have  reason  to  apprehend  that  the  great  mass 
OF  OUR  PEOPLE,  and  NOT  A  FEW  OF  OUR  MINISTERS,  really  are  at  this 
moment.'''''}^ 

Thus  much  then  in  reference  to  the  Low  Church  theory  of  their 
"  baptismal  office."  In  view  of  it  and  of  the  other  two  theories, 
how  obviously  "  vain"  the  struggle,  amid  the  interminable  jargon 
of  conflicting  statements  respecting  it,  to  escape  the  consequences 
here  pointed  out !  The  lamentable  ignorance  of  "  not  a  few"  of 
the  Episcopal  clergy,  thence  arising,  taken  in  connection  with  their 
unlimited  application  of  the  rite,  and  the  either  positive  or  implied 
release  of  the  "parents"  from  a  sense  of  religious  responsibility  to 
the  baptized  ;  and  what  wonder  that  "  tlte  great  mass  of  the  people!'' 
should  imbibe,  as  a  consequence,  "  tlie  popish  doctrine  of  hap)tismal 
regeneration^^  ?  Br.  Aydelott  can  find,  within  the  pale  of  the 
Church,  "  a  large  number  of  supporters"  to  the  "  clearly  hypothe- 
tical" theory  of  the  "baptismal  office,"  while   "  the  great  mass  of 

♦lb.,  pp.  111-112. 

t  As,  since  writing  his  book,  he  has  himself  done. 

X  Cond.  &  Prosp.,  etc.,  pp.  115,  116. 


45 

the  people"  aud  "  not  a  few"  of  its  "  ministers,"  he  affirms,  have 
"  no  clear,  definite  views  whatever"  of  what  that  "  baptismal 
office"  teaches.  But,  be  that  number  large  or  small  (and  I  not 
only  admit  but  contend  that  it  is  "  not  a  few"),  where,  I  deferen- 
tially ask,  is  there  room  for  a  choice  between  their  own  alleged 
"  clearly  hypothetical"  theory  of  the  "  baptismal  office,"  which  the 
learned  Doctor  declares  to  be  of  a  "  very  perilous"  tendency,  and 
the  "  Popish  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration"  into  which  "the 
great  mass  of  the  people"  by  it,  are  "continually  liable"  to  be  be- 
trayed ?  How,  in  view  of  this  admission,  can  we  escape  the  in- 
ference that  this  "  clearly  hypothetical"  theory  "  is,  in  fact,  but  a 
step  or  two,  and  those  very  short  ones,"  from  that  of  Rome? 
Clearly,  "  no  one  who  stands  at  tlie  first  point," — viz. :  this  "  very 
perilous"  " hypothetical"  theory,  "has  a  right  to  find  fault  with 
those  who  have  gone  onward  to  the  second." 

But,  the  "  carefully  thinking,  pious"  portion  of  the  laity  of  the 
Church,  and  those  of  the  clergy  who.  are  "  at  all  evangelical  in 
character,"  the  Doctor  tells  us,  "desire  to  see  some  change"  in 
their  "  baptismal  office."  First,  then,  what,  according  to  his  ac- 
count, is  "the  number"  of  such?    And, 

First,  of  the  clergy.  The  reader  will  here  bear  in  mind,  that 
the  statements  made  by  Dr.  Aydelott  regarding  the  matters  in 
hand,  are  the  results  of  "  thirty  years "  close  observation,  as  a 
minister  of  the  Episcopal  Church.  In  the  second  chapter  of  his 
book,  having  insisted  on  a  "  spiritual  character  and  call "  as  a  ne- 
cessary qualification  for  the  ministry,  in  answer  to  the  question, — 
"  Have  we  been  sufficiently  careful  to  ascertain,  so  far  as  man  in 
the  light  of  God's  word  can  judge,  whether  those  who  apply  to  be 
admitted  to  the  ministry  are  really  themselves  regenerated  men, 
and  called  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  preach  the  gospel,"  etc.,  he  says  : — • 

"  He  had  been  somewhat  conversant  with  examinations  for  the 
ministry  in  various  parts  of  the  Church ;  and  never,  except  on  a 
single  occasion,  has  he  known  a  question  put  to  a  candidate,  the 
object  of  which  was  to  ascertain  whether  he  had  proper  views  of 
the  sacred  office  and  a  call  to  it,  or  had  been  himself  the  subject 
of  that  spiritual,  holy  change  which  is  essential  to  Christian  cha- 
racter." To  this  he  adds,  that  "  He  cannot  but  fear  that  many  un- 
converted men — men  who  know  nothing  spiritually  of  the  truth 


46 

and  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  Lave  been  admitted  to  the  ministry 
of  the  Church."* 

Next,  of  the  laity.  "It  is  a  divine  maxim,"  says  the  Doctor, 
"  Like  priest  like  people."  "  Can  we  be  surprised  then,"  he  adds, 
"  at  the  rapid  spread  of  Puscyism  and  other  Popish  developments 
throughout  our  borders  ?  Why  Romanism  in  all  its  forms  is  just 
the  religion  of  the  natural  man.,^^  etc.f  And  again, — "Popish  er- 
rors, both  doctrinal  and  practical,  supposed  to  be  long  since  dead, 
never  to  be  revived  again,  have  become  rampant,  while  truth 
languishes  in  our  midst,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  withholds  his 
refreshing  influences.  All  complain  of  the  little  fruits  of 
their  preaching ;  a  deadness  seems  to  have  come  over  iJie  whole 
Chwch  ;  while  here  and  there  a  voice  is  heard  to  protest  against 
the  fatal  errors,"  etc.:}:  The  Doctor  also  speaks  of  the  general  ad- 
mission of  persons  to  Confirmation  and  the  Lord's  Supper,  with- 
out any  regard  to  their  spiritual  qualifications  ;  by  which,  saj^s  he, 
"the  thoughtless,  the  worldly,  and  the  self-deceived  have  been 
pressed  forward  in  throngs  to  the  altar!"  And  again:  "  Yery 
many  unconverted  men  have  found  their  way  into  our  churches — 
some  thoughtless,  some  self-deceived,  and  others  still  worse,  but 
ALL  worldly,  worldly  !"|1  And,  speaking  of  the  "  evils"  thence 
resulting,  he  says  that  they  exist  "  not  merely  in  one  or  two 
parts,"  but  they  are"  found  running  through  nearly  the  whole  of 
our  ecclesiastical  fabric,  from  the  vestry  upward  to  the  general  con- 
vention f  so  that  not  only  may  their  "vestries,"  "diocesan  con- 
ventions," and  "  standing  committees," — to  all  of  which  bodies 
are  committed  as  well  the  spiritual  as  the  secular  affairs  of  the 
Church, — be  composed  of  irreligious  men ;  but  "  a  layman,  without 
even  the  form  of  godliness,  a  perfectly  worldly  man,  even  an  infi- 
del^ may  take  his  seat  in  this  our  grand  ecclesiastical  council," — 
the  general  convention — "  and  thus  exercise  a  controlling  influ- 
ence in  the  most  vital  matters  affecting  our  whole  Church  T^ 

The  fair  inference  from  the  above  statements  we  think  is,  that 
the  clergy  "evangelical,"  and  the  "  carefully  thinking,  pious"  por- 
tion of  the  Church  Episcopal,  who  desire  to  see  some  change  in  the 

*Cond.  &  Prosp.,  &c.  pp.  18,  20.  t  lb.,  p.  20. 

Jib.,  p.  13.  y  lb.  pp.  48,  49. 

i  lb.,  Chap.  IV.,  pp.  30-39. 


47 

"  baptismal  office,"  compared  with  "  the  great  mass  of  the  people" 
who  are  popishly  inclined,  must  be  very  small. 

But,  second. — On  what  ground  can  this  "desire"  be  predicated? 
Of  course,  of  none  other  than  such  a  change  in  the  "  baptismal 
office,"  as  will  totally  and  for  ever  exclude  from  it  the  opiis  opera- 
turn  dogma — and  that  for  the  reasons  following,  namely  :  that  dogma 
involves  the  theory  of  sacramental  grace :  and  that  again,  the  theory 
of  the  "  exclusive  government  and  priestly  power"  of  episcopacy 
by  divine  right :  and  that  again,  the  theory  of  an  unbroken  apos- 
tolical succession,  without  which  there  can  be  no  church,  no  minis- 
try, no  sacraments,  no  salvation :  and  that  again,  the  theory  of 
auricular  confession  and  absolution,  without  which  adjuncts  the 
sacramental  dogma  is  wholly  incomplete  and  valueless  :  and  that 
j^gain, — *  *  *  *  But  we  might  as  well  stop  here,  and  return- 
ing back  to  the  so-called  Evangelical  or  Low  Church  "  clearly  hy- 
pothetical" theory  of  the  "  baptismal  office,"  and  on  the  authority 
of  one  of  its  most  distinguished  advocates,  say,  briefly,  it  is  be- 
cause, that,  from  its  "  very  perilous"  nature  and  tendency  in  ren- 
dering "  the  great  mass  of  the  people!'^  of  that  communion  "  conti- 
nually liable'''  to  run  "  into  the  Popish  doctrine  of  haptism^al  re- 
generation^^''Xh^rQioTQ,  SQidi  "change"  is  indispensable.  In  other 
words,  it  is  because  that,  in  the  Low  Church  theory  of  that 
"  office,"  are  contained  all  the  elements  of  that  theory  of  sacra- 
mental grace,  the  efficacy  of  which  is  made  to  depend  on  their  'oalid 
administration  "  by  the  hands"  of  a  mystic  prelatico-episcopal 
priesthood,  in  uninterrupted  succession  from  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles, jure  divino ;  and  of  which  the  Hobartian,  Tractarian,  and 
Romish  theories  are  but  the  more  complete  developments.  As 
such,  by  the  admission  of  those  of  the  Episcopal  clergy  and  laity 
"  at  all  evangelical,"  (and  the  number  of  such,  as  I  have  said,  is 
very,  very  small,  compared  with  "  the  great  mass"  both  of  the 
clergy  and  the  people,)  this  "  clearly  hypothetical"  theory,  this 
"  very  perilous"  theory,  equally  with  the  others,  stands  diametri- 
cally opposed,  doctrinally  and  practically,  to  that  theory  which 
harmonizes  with  the  great  cardinal  Protestant  principle  of  Justi- 
fication BY  Faith  alone.  The  former  theory  erects  the  "  bap- 
tismal office"  into  an  end,  by  making  the  spiritual  renewal  of  the 
heart  to  depend  on  grace  received  in  and  AT  the  instant  of  baptism. 
Thus,  both  in  the  Anglican  and  American  liturgies,  tlie  child  being 


•«r 


48 

baptized,  we  read:  "seeing  now,  dearly  beloved  brethren,  thsA  this 
child  is  REGENERATE,"  ctc,  and  again — "  "We  yield  thee  hearty 
thanks,  most  merciful  Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regene- 
rate this  infant  with  thy  holy  Spirit,^''  etc.*  Now  this,  if  we  un- 
derstand that  gentleman,  is  what  the  Eev.  Dr.  Butler  in  his  book 
on  "  Old  Truths  and  New  Errors,"  pronounces  "  absolutely  blas- 
phemous !"  Of  course  it  can  be  such  on  no  other  ground  than 
that  of  its  antagonism  to  the  latter  theory,  which  affirms  that 
baptism  is  a  means  to  an  end  :  that  "  neither  circumcision  avail- 
eth  anything,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature!" 

But,  on  this  dogma  of  "  baptismal  regeneration,"  of  which  the 
Low  Church  "  clearly  hypothetical"  theory  is  one  of  three  inter- 
pretations, RESTS  THE  ENTIRE  FABRIC  OF  ProTESTANT  EpISCOPACY  ! 

Were  this  the  time  and  place  to  do  so,  I  could  prove,  from  the 
earliest  Christian  antiquity,  that  the  ideal  of  infant  baptismal  re- 
generation preceded,  in  the  order  of  time,  the  introduction  of  a 
Christian  sacerdotal  ministry  of  three  orders.  The  former  was 
one  of  the  stepping-stones,  among  others,  to  the  creation  of  the 
latter.  Suppose,  then,  that  those  of  the  Episcopal  clergy,  etc., 
who  are  "  at  all  evangelical  in  character,"  should  succeed  in  jRro- 
testaoitizing  their  present  Romish  "  baptismal  office."  The  entire 
fabric  of  Protestant  prelacy  would  at  once  crumble  into  ruins.  Its 
only  safety  consists  in  retaining  the  "  baptismal  office,"  AS  IT  IS ! 
This,  amid  the  bewilderments  of  mind  occasioned  by  the  three  dif- 
ferent interpretations  given  of  it,  will  induce  "  the  great  mass  of 
the  people"  "  to  settle  down  contented,  with  no  clear,  definite  views 
whatever"  of  it ;  and,  happy  in  the  reflection  that  "  ignorance  is 
bliss,"  and  promotes  "  devotion  ;"  their  triple  united  teachers  will 
cast  toward  those  of  their  brethren  "  at  all  evangelical  in  charac- 
ter," and  who  "  profess  a  desire  to  see  some  change  in  it,"  a  smile 
of  complaisant  defiance. 

What  then?  Why,  I  would  say  to  my  "  dearly  beloved  breth- 
ren" of  the  really  "evangelical"  part  of  the  Episcopal  communion, 
seeing  it  is  evident  that  the  "  clearly  hypothetical"  theory  of  the 
"  baptismal  office,"  is  so  "  very  perilous"  as  that  it  renders  "  the 
great  mass  of  the  people"  "  continually  liable"  to  run  into  "  the 
Popish  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,"  I  see  not  how  you  can 
do  otherwise  than  "  abandon  this  error  altogether,  and  embrace  a 

*  See  Amer.  Prayer  Book,  Office  for  the  "  Public  Baptism  of  Infants." 


•  49 

scriptural  Cliristianitj,  and  thus  become  -rkal  Protestants." 
Such  "  real  Protestants,"  the  inference  from  Dr.  Stone's  argument 
as  drawn  from  the  language  in  the  "Preface"  to  the  Ordinal, 
clearly  shows  you  are  not  now :  In  his  great  zeal  to  prove  his 
Church  truly  "  Catholic"  in  her  relation  toward  her  anfi-prelatical 
neighbors,  the  learned  Doctor  has  completely  rr^PROTESTANTizED 
her!  and  all  that  now  remains  to  that  learned  divine,  so  far  as  I 
can  see,  is  one  of  two  alternatives  ;  either,  first,  to  prove  our 
reasoning  regarding  his  hj^pothesis  fallacious  ;  or  second,  to  yield 
to  the  interpretation  of  the'  "Preface"  by  the  High  Church  party, 
and  unite  with  them  in  denying  that  the  appellation  of  "  Pro- 
testant," forms  a  legitimate  part  of  the  title  of  "  the  Church."  In 
illustration,  witness,  on  this  subject,  the  acts  of- the  Diocesan  Con- 
ventions of  New  York,  in  1839  and  1843,  in  corroboration  of  the 
efforts  made  by  more  than  one  Episcopal  chair,  to  erase  from  their 
ecclesiastical  escutcheon — the  title-page  of  "  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer" — ^and  from  all  their  authorized  standards,  the  very  name 
of  "  Protestant  ;"  and  that,  upon  the  ground, — as  set  forth  in  a 
communication  on  this  subject,  in  the  columns  of  The  ChurcJi- 
Tnan  of  1843,- — that  "  the  title-page  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  contained  prirna  facie  evidence  of  schism,  and  boldly  re- 
commending a  RE-uNioN  wrrn  Rome,  on  the  common  basis  of  the 
authorized  decrees  of  Trent"  !  This  done,  and — as  we  have  said— 
the  name  of  "  Protestant  Episcopacy"  would  soon  be  numbered 
among  the  things  that  were !  And,  in  regard  to  the  "  baptismal 
office,"  we  must  insist  that,  taken  as  it  is,  it  leaves  to  every  honest 
Churchman  but  one  of  two  alternatives — Rome  or  Geneva — 
"  CHURCHISM,  by  a  perfectly  natural  process" — to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  Dr.  Aydelott, — draws  the  mind  and  heart  Romeward. 
Yes,  "  Churchism,"  in  its  most  diluted  and  modified  forms.  To 
account  for  this,  there  is  no  assignable  reason  other  than  that  found 
in  the  ever-to-be  lamented  fact,  that,  incorporated  in  the  very  "  for- 
mularies of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,"  as  constructed  by 
the  reformers  themselves,  is  the  utterly  incongruous  leaven  of  the 
old  Romish  superstitions,  with  the  7ic>;^-jure-divino  episcopacy  and 
Calvinistico-evangelical  doctrines,  as  originally  set  forth  by  them 
in  those  same  standards.  Thus,  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of 
Edward  VI.  is  declared  by  the  commissioners  appointed  to  con- 
struct it  (and  of  whom  Cranraer  was  the  head)  to  contain  "  every 


50 

thing  sound  and  valuable  in  the  Eomish  missal  and  breviary," 
such  parte  having  been  "  transferred  by  them,  without  scruple,  to 
the  English  Communion  Service,  and  to  the  Common  Prayer." 
The  same  of  the  commissioners  appointed  by  Charles  II.,  a.d., 

1661,  to  revise  the  liturgy.  They  say,  "  we  humbly  desire  that  it 
may  be  considered  that  our  first  reformers^  out  of  their  great 
wisdom,  did  at  that  time  compose  the  liturgy  so  as  to  win  the 
Papists^  and  to  draw  them  into  their  church  coinniunion^  by 

VARYING  AS  LIITLE  AS  THEY    OOULD  FROM  THE    E.OMISH  FOEMS  BEFORE 

m  USE." 

With  these  facts,  then,  before  us,,  the  protest  of  the  XXXIX 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  against  Popish  errors,  and  her 
engraftment  therein  of  the  doctrines  of  the  continental  reformers, 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding, — and  which,  so  far  as  they  go, 
we  concede  to  be  both  Protestant  and  evangelical, — it  is  clear, 
that,  constituted  as  she  now  is,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
never  can  be  reformed.  The  effects  of  incorporating  into  her 
reformed  "formularies,"  the  life-Uood^  so  to  speak,  of  the  old 
"Eomish  forms  before  in  use,"  are  first  discoverable  in  exchan- 
ging the  regimen  of  episcopacy  as  founded  in  expediency  alone, 
for  that  of  an  episcopacy  by  divine  right,  and  that  for  the  simple 
reason,  that  the  theory  of.  sacramental  grace.,  as  derived  from  "the 
Eomish  forms  before  in  use,"  demands  for  its  basis,  a  ministry, — 
a  priesthood— founded  in  ^'^  jprescriptive  rightP  To  the  same  cause 
may  be  traced  all  those  earthquake  commotions  which,  since  a.d. 

1662,  under  Laud,  during  the  time  of  Elizabeth,  and  for  the  fif- 
teen years  last  past,  have  shaken  that  Church  to  its  center,  and, 
from  the  present  aspect  of  things  in  that  body,  as  we  have  shown, 
the  same  Romanizing  tendencies^  with  but  one  exception,  signalize 
all  the  various  forms  of  development — the  Tractarian,  the  Ho- 
bartian,  and  the  so-called  Evangelical  Low  Church  forms — of  the 
prelatical  scheme.  Otherwise,  how  is  it,  we  deferentially  ask, 
that,  of  the  only  portion  (and  that  a  "  very  small"  portion)  of  those 
within  that  pale  who  adhere  to  the  original  platform  of  the  first 
Enghsh  reformers  regarding  Episcopacy  and. the  evangelical  doc- 
trines of  the  Church,  it  is  said  that  they  are  "  outside  of  the  body 
to  which  they  are  nominally  attached?"  Again,  we  ask,  by  what 
party  is  this  "very  small  number"  thus  virtually  excommunicated? 
The  reply  is,  chiefly  by  the  so-called  Evangelical  Low  Church  sect. 


61 

What  follows  ?  We  answer,  The  uprooting  of  the  heart,  the  core, 
of  all  that  is  worth  the  name  of  Evangelical  Protestantism  within 
that  body.  Yielding,  then,  to  the  influence  of  your  "evangelical" 
promptings,  do  as  I  and  others  have  done,  and  are  continually 
doing: — -"reject  the  (baptismal)  service  as  Popish,  and  quit  the 
Church  altogether."*  "  Come  out  of  Jier^  my  jpeojple^  that  ye  he  not 
partakers  of  her  sins,  and  that  ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues  /"  ' 
And  so,  Presbyterians,  and  all  others  concerned,  I  would  ear- 
nestly caution  you,  on  the  other  hand,  to  "  beware"  of  the  insidi- 
ous blandishments  of  those  so-called  Evangelical  or  Low  Church 
advocates  of  prelacy,  who,  assuming  the  Protestant  name,  conr 
ceal  the  proscriptive,  exclusive,  unchurching,  Romish  attributes 
of  the  prelatical  theory,  beneath  the  pretexts  of  great  liberality, 
Catholicity,  and  Christian  fellowship  towards  those  of  "other 
denominations,"  until,  having  seduced  you  within  the  inclosure  of 
the  Episcopal  pale,  as  the  curtain  of  disguise  is  gradually  drawn 
aside,  you  find  yourself  inducted  by  piece-meal  into  all  the  mys- 
teries of  the  mystic  faith,  as  really  believed  and  taught  therein. 
In  the  above  pretexts,  I  forewarn  you,  lie  the  secret  of  the  power 
of  that  proselyting  lever  so  successfully  plied  by  Low  Churchmen 
in  upholding  and  promoting  the  cause  of  prelacy.  Then,  "  be- 
ware" of  them.  Ask  these  prelatists — if  your  "  baptismal  office" 
does  not  inculcate  the  Romish  dogma  of  "  baptismal  regeneration," 
how  comes  it  to  pass  that,^  by  your  own  acknowledgment,  even 
your  own  "clearly  hypothetical"  theory  of  that  "office"  is  so 
"very  perilous,"  as  that  "  the  great  mass"  of  those  brought  under 
its  influence  are  "  continually  liable"  to  be  betrayed  into  that 
heretical,  anti-Christian,  soul-destroying  heresy?  Ask  them,  if, 
as  you  say,  you  are  but  " partially  separated"  by  "a  slight 
diversit}^,"  doctrinally  and  practically,  from  those  of  "other  de- 
nominations," and  that  you  "do  not  hold,  and  shall  not  teach," 
that  those  not  "  episcopal ly  consecrated  are  no  part  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  their  ordinances  being  invalid,"  etc.,  and  that,  "  whilst 
giving  hospitality  to  a  truly  pious  clergyman  of  a  denomination 
different  from  your  own,"  you  have  "  been  entertaining  an  angel 
unawares ;"  how  is  it  that,  in  view  of  such  statements  as  these, 
you  are  not  as  ready  to  extend  clerical  civilities  to  them  by  an  oo- 

(I)    Rnv.  IS  :  4. 

*  Dr.  Aydelolt's  Condition  and  Prospects,  etc..  p.  116. 


'\S 


52 


casional  exchange  oi  pulpits  not  only,  but,  as  in  the  case  of  the 
English  Church  from  which  you  sprang,  allow  them  to  settle  in 
your  churches,  as  to  meet  them  "  in  their  studies  ?"  Aye,  further, 
why  is  it,  when  one  such  "angel"  seeks  to  minister  at  your 
altars — one  whose  office  you  declare  you  "  do  not  hold,  and  shall 
not  teach"  is  invalid — that,  before  admitting  him  thereto,  you 
insist  on  his  re-okdination  ?  Ask  them,  liow  do  you  harmonize 
the  declaration,  that  "  the  name  '  Catholicity'  is  never  more  per- 
verted than  when  it  is  made  to  designate  exdusive7iess,^^  with  the 
affirmation  that  "  the  Church"  Episcopal  "  is  the  parent,  the  basis, 
the  bulwark  of  all  the  religion"  without,  as  well  as  within,  her 
pale  ?  And,  Christian  brethren,  when  they  can  answer  these  and 
the  like  interrogatories  in  strict  accordance  with  scriptural  consist- 
ency and  truth,  and  with  historical  fact,  then,  and  not  till  then, 
can  they  honestly  adopt  the  language  of  Paul  following : — "  For 
our  rejoicing  is  this,  the  testimony  of  our  conscience,  that  in  sim- 
plicity and  godly  sincerity,  not  with  fleshly  wisdom,  but  by  the 
grace  of  God,  we  have  had  our  conversation  in  the  world,  and 
more  abundantly  toward  you." '  Yea,  then,  and  not  till  then, 
can  they  honestly  say, — "  For  we  are  not  as  many,  which  corrupt 
the  word  of  God,  but  as  of  sincerity,  but  as  of  God,  in  the  sight 
of  God,  speak  we  in  Christ." ' 

In  conclusion  on  this  subject,  I  have  only  to  add,  that  the  pre- 
tenses of  the  so-called  Evangelical  or  Low  Church  advocates  of 
prelacy  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  their  theory  of  "  Church- 
ism"  is  iivi^^j  proscriptive  and  exclusive — equally  founded  on  the 
basis  of  DIVINE  bight,  with  those  of  the  Hobartian,  Tractarian,  and 
Romish  schemes. 

To  the  above,  we  now  add,  that  all  classes  of  prelatists  equally 
maintain  that  their  system,  in  its  complete  and  distinct  form,  can- 
not be  found  positively  set  forth  in,  or  that  it  is  even  strictly 
deducible  from,  the  New  Testament  scriptures  alone,  and  there- 
fore, that  it  depends  for  its  support  upon  testimony  superadded 
to  Scripture. 

Hence,  the  traditionary  scheme,  Part  I.  of  this  treatise,  is 
designed  to  demonstrate  that  this  traditionarj^  scheme,  being  em- 
ployed to  uphold  the  system  of  prelacy  on  the  ground  of  divine 
right,  must  necessarily  be  co-ordinate,  or  of  equal  authority,  with 

(1)9  Cor.  I  :13.  (2)  2  Cor.  2  :  17. 


53    ■*" 

Scripture,  and  hence,  that  tills  Is  as  true  of  the  Low  Church,  as  of 
the  Tractarlan  and  Romish  theories  of  tradition. 

In  opposition  to  this  hypothesis,  Part  11.  claims  to  furnish  the 
evidence,  that  the  scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  clearly  reveal 
a  complete  scheme  of  that  Church  order,  etc.,  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  designed'  for  the  ordinary  and  permanent  upbuilding  and 
edification  of  the  Church,  to  the  close  of  the  present  dispensation, 
and  that  the  primitive  ecclesiastical  regimen  of  the  Church  con- 
sisted of  the  Dual  Orders  of  Presbyter  Bishops — in  whom  were 
merged  the  double  functions  of  teaching  and  Tilling  elders,  and  of 
Deacons. 

Part  III.  is  devoted  to  an  exhibit  of  the  system  of  prelacy  as  al- 
leged to  be  founded  in  divine  right: — that  is,  that  it  was  instituted 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  by  them  was  designed  to  be  con- 
tinued in  an  unbroken  succession  of  bishops,  who  were  to  be  in- 
vested with  the  prerogatives  of  "exclusive  government"  in  the 
Church,  and  of  "priestly  power"  in  dispensing  "sacramental 
grace,"  to  the  end  of  time. 

I  claim  to  have  entered  into  a  thorough  examination  of  every 
position  assumed,  and  of  every  fact  and  argument  employed  .in 
their  defense,  whether  drawn  from  "  holy  Scripture,"  or  "  ancient 
authors,"  or  whether  advanced  by  the  Romanist,  the  Tractarian, 
the  Hobartian,  or  the  Low  Churchman. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary  again  to  repeat,  that  the  main  design  of 
my  treatise  is  to  furnish  the  evidence,  from  their' own  acknowl- 
edged standards  and  writers^  that  the  theory  of  prelacy  as  advo- 
cated by  the  so-called  Evangelical  or  Low  Church  sect,  contains  all 
ih.Q  elements^  and  hence  all  the  tendencies^  Homeward,  as  those  of 
the  Hobartian  and  Tractarian  schemes,  and  that,  with  the  single 
view  of  guarding  the  "  unlearned"  and  unwary  from  the  power  of 
its  more  seductive  blandishments. 

The  work  is  committed  to  the  blessing  of  Him  who  alone  '■'■is 
able  to  heep  tcs  from  falling,  and  to  present  us  faultless  lefore 
the  throne  of  his  glory  with  exceeding  joy. ''''  *     Amen. 

R.  C.  SHIMEALL. 

0)  Judo,  V.  24. 


PART  I. 


PRELIMINARY  ESSAY  ON  THE  RULE  OF  FAITH.* 

THE   SCEIPTURES   ALOISTE, 

versus 

THE   SCEIPTURES    AISTD   TEADITIOI^^. 

"To  the  Law  and  to  the  Testimony."      (Isa.  7  :  20.) 

'*  The  Church  hath  power  to  decree  rites  and  cerernonies,  and  authority  in  controversies 
of  Faith."     (.Boole  of  Common  Prayer.     Articles  of  Religion.     See  XX.) 
"  Holy  Scripture  and  Ancient  Authors."'      (Preface  to  Ordinal.) 

In  the  following  Treatise  we  "  speak  concerning  Christ  and  the 
Church.'"  Christ,  whom  the  Father  "  gave  to  be  the  Head 
over  all  things  to  the  Church,  which  is  His  body."^  The  Church, 
its  Constitution  and  Ministry  :  the  latter  in  the  aspect  of  its  Origin, 
Nature,  Orders  and  Powers  ;  or,  the  "  Gifts"  conferred  upon  her 
("  when  He  ascended  up  on  high")'  as  "  holding  the  Head."* 

Now,  that  the  Church,  in  her  constitution,  etc.,  from  an  early 
period  subsequent  to  the  New  Testament  age,  differs  essentially 
from  the  Church  Apostolical  and  Primitive,  the  various  claimants 
to  an  exclusive  inheritance  of  the  o?-iginal  7nodeI,   abundantly 

It  matters  not  now,  in  what  these  differences  consist.  What  at 
present  concerns  us  is,  to  fix  upon  an  authoritative  standard 
OF  APPEAL,  regarding  the  points  at  issue.  Is  it  "  the  Bible,  and 
the  Bible  alone  "?  or,  is  it  "  Scripture  and  Tradition"  ?  One  or 
the  other  it  must  be.  Both,  it  cannot  be.  The  fact,  however,  that 
the  latter  theory  stands  identified,  controversially,  with  all  our  in- 
quiries after  truth,  a  decision  of  the  question  in  favor  of  the  one 

(1)  Eph.  5  :  32.  (2)  Ih.  1  :  22,  S3.  (3)  lb.  4  :  8,  11.  (4)  Col.  2  :  !C. 

*  Of  the  more  elaborate  helps  in  this  important  department,  designed  for  popular 
use — as  what  I  here  offer  is  intended  simply  as  an  outline  of  the  argument  in  defense  of 
the  Scriptures  as  the  supreme  and  only  authoritative  Rule  of  Faith  against  the  claims 
of  Tradition  as  co-ordinate  therewith — I  know  of  no  work  extant  so  admirably 
adapted  to  the  wants  of  the  inquirer  as  that  of  the  Rev.  Georre  Peck,  D.D.,  entitled, 
"Appeal  from  Tradition  to  Scripture  and  Common  Sense;  or,  an  Answer  to  the  Ques- 
tion. What  constitutes  the  Divine  Rule  of  Faith  and  Practice  ?  New  York  :  Published 
by  G.  Lane  and  P.  P.  Sandford,  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  the  Conference 
Office,  200  Mulberry  street      1844." 


56 

or  tlie  other,  is  indispensable  to  a  determination  of  tlie  merits  of 
the  claims  to  our  belief  and  trust  of  the  systems  respectively  whieh 
they  are  designed  to  uphold.  There  is,  we  affirm,  no  other  mode 
of  escaj)e  from  the  bewildering  "  labyrinth  of  opinions"  now  so 
rife  in  the  nominally  Christian  Church.  Either  "  the  Bible,  and 
the  Bible  alone,"  as  the  bulwark  of  Protestantism,  is  of  itself  suf- 
ficient and  supreme,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is,  then,  undeniably,  the 
sufficiency  and  supremacy  of  Scripture,  as  "  the  Rule  of  Faith," 
being  predicated  of  its  infallibility  as  attested  by  miracle,  neces- 
sarily nullifies^  as  authoritative,  all  other  teachings, — tradition, 
oral,  or  written ;  creeds,  confessions,,  the  decisions  of  Popes  or 
councils,  or  the  "  voice  of  'the  Church.'"  As  the  only  authori- 
tative standard  of  appeal,  all  alike  are  referable  to,  and  must  de- 
pendon,  ^'fe  decisions.  Even  the  injunction,  "Hear  the  Church,"' 
inasmuch  as  the  Scripture  shows  us  whicJt  is  the  true  Church  by 
Christ  speaking  to  us  therein  ;^  can  impose  no  other  obligation 
than  that  of  a  respectfid  deference  to  her  teachings  as  the  inter- 
preter of  Scripture  through  her  ministry ;  and  that,  not  legis- 
latively or  judicially,  not  making  laws,  &c.,  but  simply  in  the  sense 
of  explaiiung  those  which  God  has  already  promulgated.  Hence, 
while  the  Church  speaks  to  us  ministerially^  the  Bible  does  so 
authoritatively.  The  Church  does  not  "  exercise  dominion  over 
our  faith,  but  is  a  helper  of  our  joy."^ 

And,  if  founded  in  truth,  this  theory  involves  the  right,  not 
only,  but  the  iiecessity  of  _^^/'^'yai!6  interpretation.  It  contemplates 
revelation  in  the  aggregate  as  addressed  to  the  understanding  of 
men  ;  and  hence,  that  its  truths  are  to  be  reached  by  that  convic- 
tion which  results  from  a  proper  use  of  the  means  ordained  of 
God  to  that  end, — a  prayerful*  searching'  of  holy  Scripture, 
in  dependence  upon  the  guidance  of  that  wisdom  from  on  high," 
which  is  founded  in  the  declared  inadequacy  of  mere  abstract 
reason.'' 

While,  therefore,  speaking  of  '  the  Church'  collectively,  a  self- 
sufficient,  self-willed,  litigious  spirit  is  at  war  with  that  respect 
which  is  due  to  her  decisions  in  matters  both  of  doctrine  and  of 
discipline,"  and  is  to  be  condemned;'  yet,  arguing  a  p7'iori, 
that  as  '  the  Church  has  erred,  so  she  may  err  again  ;*  such  a 
spirit  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  right  of  her  individual 
members  in  the  exercise  of  an  enlightened  judgment  and  con- 
science, to  "  be  fully  persuaded  in  their  own  minds"'"  regarding 
all  things  pertaining  to  "the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."" 

(1)  A'fitt.  IS  :  17.     (2)   Fph    2  :  19-21.     (3)  0  Cor  1  :  24.     (4)  Jamea  1  :  5.     (5)  John  5  :  39  ;  Acts 

17  :  11  ;  i  Pet.  1  :  10.     (6)  .James  1  :  6.     (7)   1  Cor.  2  :  14.     (8)  Matt.  28  :  17  ;  1  Cor.  6  :  1.     (9)  Matt. 

18  :  17  ;  Titus  3  :  10.     (10)  Horn.  14  :  .'J.     (Il).)ijile3. 

*  "  General  Councils  may  err.'"  (XXXIX  Articles.     Art.  XXI.) 

"As   the    Church  of  Jerusalem,   Alexandria   and    Antioch,  have   erred,  so  also   the 

Church  of  Ronne  has  erred,  not  only  in  their  living  and  manner  of  ceremonies,  but  also 

in  matters  of  faith."      (lb.  Art.  XIX  ) 


67 

Yea,  more :     There  is  a  needs  be  that  each  one  for  himself  "  try 
the  spirits"  of  his  religious  teachers,  "whether  they  be  of  God- 
'*  TRY  theTTh  which  say   they  are  apostles  and  are  not^  hut  are, 
found  lia7's" 

This  theory — the  palladium  of  Protestantism — thus  defined, 
traditionists  impugn ;  not,  however,  on  the  same  ground  or  to  the 
same  extent ;  nor  do  they  professedly  apply  their  conflicting 
schemes  to  the  same  uses,  some  holding  the  dogmas  of  tradition  as 
subordiyiate  to  Scripture,  while  others  maintain  its  absolute 
equality  with  Scripture. 

If,  however,  it  should  be  made  to  appear — as  we  shall  presently 
show — that,  from  the  very  nature  and  character  of  tradition  as  an 
alleged  standard  of  appeal  in  matters  of  religious  controversy,  it 
leaves  us  no  other  alternative  but  to  receive  and  apply  it  as  co- 
ordinate with  Scripture,  the  inconsistency  and  futility  of  the 
scheme  which  alleges  it  to  be  subordinate  to  Scripture,  is  at  once 
apparent. 

We  argue,  then,  as  follows  :  Tradition,  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy, 
unless  co-ordinate  with  Scripture,  involves  the  theory  of  a  divided 
authority.  In  other  words,  it  is  to  appeal  to  a  standard  partly 
infallible,  partly  fallible.  But  this  is  the  charge  preferred  by 
traditionists  en  masse  against  their  so-called  ultra-Protestant  oppo- 
nents, and  upon  the  evident  inconsistency  of  which  standard  is 
built  up  the  theory  of  an  infallible  tradition,  alias  the  voice  of  a 
divinely -insjoired^  VOST-apostolic  Church. 

The  above  charge,  however,  is  unfounded.  Ultra-Protestants, 
so-called,  make  no  appeal  to  a  double-tongued  standard.  With 
them  the  question  at  issue  is  purely  one  of  authority.  And, 
however  they  may  defer  to  the  opinions  of  others,  ancient  or 
modern ;  or  to  the  historico-eccltsiastical  records  of  j906^apos- 
tolic  times ;  or  to  the  rudimental  instructions  of  the  novitiate 
catechetically  or  otherwise  "&?/  the  Church,^'  agreeably  to  the 
admitted  maxim,  "  oportet  discentem  credere ;"  yet  the  question 
with  them  regards,  not  the  utility  or  even  the  necessity  of  such 
teaching,  but  on  what  grounds  and  to  what  extent  it  is  to  be  carried. 
And  they  deny  the  co-ordinate  authority  of  one  or  all  of  these 
sources  of  instruction,  with  that  of  holy  Scripture.  Yea,  more  : 
These  sources  of  instruction  being  ^05^apostolic,  as  the  idea  of 
authority  on  the  part  of  the  teacher  necessarily  involves  that  of 
implicit  faith  in,  and  unconditional  obedience  to,  the  things  taught ; 
they  deny  the  appointment,  either  by  Christ  or  his  Apostles,  of 
any  such  authority.  In  a  word,  they  deny  the  legitimacy  of  the 
inference  that,  because  the  /Scriptures  are  infallible,  therefore  the 
Interpreter  of  Scripture  must  be  infallible  also. 

But  this  is  the  theory  essential  to  the  supiport  of  the  ecclesiastical  sys- 
tem maintained  by  traditionists.  Anti-prelatists  admit  and  con- 
tend that  the  scriptures  of  the  New  Testament  (as  we  shall  show 
in  the  sequel)  clearly  reveal  a  complete  scheme  of  church  order, 


58 

etc.  Prelatists,  however,  are  engaged  in  the  maintenance  of  a 
system  which,  in  its  coinplete  and  distinct  form,  they  themselves 
admit  cannot  be  found  positively  set  forth  in,  or  that  is  even 
strictly  deduciblc  from,  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  afone,  and 
hence,  that  it  depends  for  its  support  upon  testimony  superadded 
to,  Scripture. 

One  of  two  alternatives  follows.  Either,  first,  the  system  of 
Church  order,  etc.,  which  they  advocate,  is  a  mere  human  device, 
and  rests  for  its  support  on  mere  human  testimony ;  or,  second,  if, 
as  they  allege,  it  is  founded  jure  divino — by  Divine  appoint- 
ment— and  hence,  that  it  constitutes  an  integral  and  essential  part 
of  Christianity,  securing  to  them  the  exclusive  right  of  a  divine 
commission  to  perpetuate  the  succession,  administer  sacraments, 
condemn  heretics,  etc. ;  then,  the  superadded  testimony  called  in  to 
its  support,  must  stand  on  a  footing  of  equal  authority  with  Scrip- 
ture itself 

But,  as  we  have  said,  it  is  upon  the  evident  inconsistency  of  an 
.  appeal  to  a  divided  authority,  partly  infallible,  partly  fallible,  in 
determining  any  controverted  point,  that  traditionists  set  up  the 
plea  of  necessity  for  an  infallihle  traditionary  standard.  In  no 
other  way  can  they  ward  off  a  turning  of  the  tables  against  them 
by  their  so-called  ultra-Protestant  opponents.  Hence,  differ  as 
they  may  in  other  respects,  they  all  concur  in  a  declaration  of  the 
insufioienGy  of  an  appeal  to  written  evidence  alone,  in  support  of 
their  system.  That  written  evidence,  they  affirm,  must  be  clothed 
with  authority^  or  it  is  nugatory. 

Hence,  the  main  point  in  this  discussion.  What  is  the  origin, 
nature,  and  extent  of  that  authority  ?  We  reply,  the  only  view 
consistent  with  the  alleged  traditionary  hypothesis,  is  that  which 
makes  it  co-ordinate,  or  of  equal  authority  with,  and,  conse- 
quently, independent  of^  holy  Scripture.  To  maintain  the  au- 
thority of  tradition  simply  upon  the  ground  that  its  claims  are 
supported  by  Scripture,  and  therefore,  that  it  is  subordinate  to 
Scripture,  involves  the  alternative  of  a  "  vicious  circle,"  such  as 
none  but  a  true  Romanist  can  employ.  For  example,  a  denial 
that  the  above  claims  are  supported  by  Scripture  drives  its  advo- 
cates to  an  appeal  to  the  orthodox  interpretation,  as  "  established 
by  the  authority  of  tradition^  and  the  sentence  of  the  Church.''^ 
Thus,  the  perpetual  circle — the  claims  of  traditional  authority 
supported  by  Scripture,  the  sense  of  which  can  only  be  deter- 
mined by  the  alleged  authoritaiive  interpretations  of  tradition! 
This,  however,  is  to  make  tradition  its  own  witness.  Christ 
has  declared,  "  If  a  man  bear  witness  of  himself  his  witness  is 
not  true."  ' 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  on  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  of 
the  absolute  independence  of  tradition,  "  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible 
alone,"  holds  the  supremacj^  as  the  standard  of  appeal.    At  least, 

(1)  John  5  :  31. 


59 

the  only  escape  from  this  alternative,  is  the  supposition  that  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures,  though  they  may  have  been  the  pro- 
ductions of  wise  and  good  men,  were,  nevertheless,  not  given  by 
inspiration,*  and  hence,  are  not  infallible.  Traditionists,  however, 
are  strenuous  in  their  advocacy  of  both  the  inspiration  and  infalli- 
bility of  Scripture.  Tradition,  therefore,  if  possessed  of  an  au- 
thority independent  of  Scripture,  the  authority  of  both  must  be 
equally  divine. 

What,  then,  is  the  hasis  of  this  traditionary  scheme  ?  Its  advo- 
cates, having  assumed  that  the  Scriptures,  and  especially  the  New 
Testament  writings,  cannot  be  primarily  understood  by  the  mere 
perusal  of  them  alo7ie^  argue  hence  the  necessity  of  an  interpret- 
er— "  THE  Chuech" — whose  teaching,  to  prove  effectual^  must  be 
authoritative.  In  other  words,  tradition,  oral  and  written^  alias 
"the  voice  of  the  Church,"  is  the  authoritative  interpreter  of  the 
inspired  records.  Hence,  the  rule  of  faith  to  the  traditionists— 
"  hol}^  Scripture  and  ancient  authors." 

Let  us  now  test  this  assumption,  and  the  inference  deduced  from 
it,  by  the  principles  of  sound  reason.  Inasmuch  as  the  revelation 
of  those  truths  which  hegan  by  inspiration,  can  only  be  completed 
by  inspiration,  so  "no  power  can  decide  with  authority  in  anj 
case,  what  is  the  sense  of  revelation,  but  the  same  which  origi- 
nally disclosed  it."  But,  "mere  human  authoritj^,  however  good, 
is  obviously  insufficient  for  this  purpose.  Unauthoritative  tradi- 
tion (however  applicable  in  other  ways)  can  never  create  points  of 
faith,  or  lay  down  the  terms  of  salvation:  to  do  so,  it  must  be- 
come authoritative."  Therefore,  "  if  the  New  Testament  be  admit- 
ted to  contain  the  divine  revelation  of  Christianity,  and  if  the 
additional  interpretation  of  tradition  and  judgment  of  the  Church 
be  equcdly  necessary  to  the  full  exjyosition  and  maintenance  of  the 
Gospel^  THEK  these  traditional  and  authoritative  additions  must 
also  be  regarded  as  conveying  portions  of  divine  revelation  as 
well  as  the  written  record :  they  must.,  in  fact.,  he  a  part  of  the 
Gospel :  they  must  he  as  much  the  word  of  God  as  the  New  Testa- 
ment is?'' 

Again :  along  with  Scripture,  on  the  above  hypothesis,  the  tra- 
ditionary theory  involves  the  question  of  evidence.  All  agree  that 
the  evidence  on  which  rests  the  divine  authority  of  holy  Scripture 
is  that  of  miracles.  But  tradition,  as  an  alleged  independent  sys- 
tem, implies  the  addition  of  an  authorized  comment  thereto.  We 
thence  argue,  if  revealed  truth  require  miraculous  evidence  in  its 
support,  then  similar  evidence  must  attest  every  veliicle  of  revela- 
tion. On  the  ground,  then,  that  the  authority  of  Scripture  and 
tradition  are  alike  divine,  it  follows  that  miraculous  evidence  is 
equally  indispensable  in  regard  to  hotli.,  and  the  claims  of  tradition, 
sustained  by  such  evidence — and,  the  writings  of  Ignatius,  Poly- 
carp,  Clement,  Hermes,  etc.,  are  as  inspired,  infallible,  and  authori- 
tative, as  those  of  Peter  and  Paul  1 


4 


60 


We  ask,  then  :  Is  it  so  ?  The  claim,  be  it  observed,  if  pre- 
ferred, at  once  identifies  the  preseiit  with  those  past  ar/es,  which 
were  acknowledgedly  miraculous.  At  least,  this  alternative  follows, 
unless  the  limit  be  definitely  determined,  where  and  when  authori- 
■  tative  tradition  ceased.  This,  however,  cannot  be  done.  The 
only  choice  left  us  is  to  treat  it  agrecabl}''  to  the  current  view, 
which  assigns  to  it  three  epochs, — primitive,  mediaeval,  and  modern. 

Then,  also,  as  a  condition,  indispensable  to  the  maintenance  of 
the  rjenuineness  of  the  above  evidence  in  behalf  of  tradition  as  a 
whole,  if  preferred,  so  far  from  diminishing,  the  proof  of  miracu- 
lous agency  in  the  Church  must  rather  increase,  just  in  proportion 
to  its  remoteness,  in  point  of  time,  to  the  apostolic  age.  This  con- 
dition is  founded  in  the  very  nature  of  miraculous  evidence,  the 
design  of  which  is  to  supply  a  tangible  and  therefore  definite  test 
of  that  which  is  divine  revelation,  and  that  which  is  not ;  to  dis- 
tinguish absolutely  between  what  is  Christian  truth,  and  what  is 
heresy.  And,  surely,  this  is  as  essential  to  one  period  of  the 
Church  as  to  another ;  to  the  Church  at  the  present  day,  as  to  the 
Church  eighteen  hundred  years  ago. 

Now,  that  the  theory  of  tradition  necessarily  involves  the  unin- 
terrupted  perpetuity  of  miracles  in  the  Cliurch,  is  evident  from  the 
principles  on  which  it  is  built.  It  contemplates  the  Church  as  one 
and  indivisible ;  having  a  ministry,  jure  divino,  to  whom  Christ 
has  delegated  His  of&cial  functions,  with  power  to  transmit  the 
same  in  unbroken  continuity  to  their  successors  to  the  end  of  time, 
and  hence,  as  the  divinely  authorized  interpreters  of  the  Scriptures, 
to  originate  a  traditional  commentary  or  synopsis  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, discipline,  ceremonial  observances,  sacerdotal  authority,  etc., 
as  parts  of  the  revelation  of  Christianity,  and  as  essential  to  the 
right  recognition  of  the  real  spirit  and  genius  of  the  apostolic 
institution,  as  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  itself  As,  then, 
according  to  this  view,  '  the  Church  and  the  Fathers'  were  simply 
as  much  the  depositories  of  one  portion  of  Christian  doctrine  as 
Apostles  and  Evangelists  were  of  another ;  it  is  a  necessary  con- 
sequence that  the  evidence  demonstrative  of  the  genuineness  of 
both  must  be  precisely  the  same  for  each. 

And  this  brings  us  to  a  question  o^  fact.  Tradition,  its  advo- 
cates inform  us,  has  never  been  interrupted.  They  profess  to  trace 
it  upward,  from  the  present  time,  through  the  Oxford  school ;  the 
divines  of  the  last  century ;  the  nonjuring  party ;  Laud  and  his 
coadjutors;  some  of  the  reformers;  and  so  on  through  the  purer(?) 
channel  of  the  schoolmen  of  the  mediaeval  ages,  up  to  the  Apos- 
tolical Fathers,  by  whose  writings  the  whole  system  of  traditional 
teaching  is  alleged  to  be  directly  connected  with  the  Apostles 
themselves,  who,  they  affirm,  left  in  writing  but  a  small  portion  of 
the  instructions  orally  delivered  to  their  converts  and  successors. 
The  question  then  presents  itself:  Is  it  a  fact  that  these  miracu- 
lous powers,  as  evidence  of  the  divine  authority  of  tradition,  have 


61 

heen  continued  and  are  now  present  in  tlie  Cliurcli  ?  Has  the  "  gene- 
ral consent"  of  the  Church,  to  which  traditionists  refer  ns  as  the 
sole  and  sufficient  test  of  true  doctrine, — most  comprehensively 
expressed  in  the  famous  maxim  of  Vincentius  Lirinensis,  "  Quod 
uhique,  quod  semper,  qiood  ah  omnibus  creditum  est,''''  been  confirmed 
all  along  since  the  tmies  of  the  Apostles  by  this  evidence  ?  On 
the  above  hypothesis  of  an  authoritative  and  independent  tradi- 
tion, consistency,  we  insist,  requires  the  admisssion,  and  the  unin- 
terrupted continuance  of,  such  evidence.  On  any  other  supposi- 
tion, the  whole  theory  falls  to  the  ground. 

Now,  it  is  conceded  that  the  tradition  conveyed  in  the  writings 
of  the  early  fathers  bears  distinct,  and  unequivocal  testimony  to 
the  prevalence  of  miraculous  powers  in  the  Church,  not  only  in 
the  earliest  age,  but  even  to  a  much  later  period.  There  are  ample 
grounds,  however,  for  a  mooting  of  the  question,  how  far  said 
testimony  is  not  surreptitious, — the  work  of  those  who,  to  erect 
tradition  into  an  authoritative  standard  of  appeal,  have  not  scrupled 
to  corrupt,  mutilate  and  interpolate  these  early  ecclesiastical 
records.  On  this  subject  we  shall  only  trouble  the  reader  with 
one  out  of  many  similar  proofs  which  might  be  added,  confirma- 
tory of  this  fact.  We  quote,  in  evidence,  from  the  learned  Du 
Pin,  of  standard  Romish  authoritj^.  Speaking  of  the  indiscreet 
piety  of  some  persons  w^ho  thought  they  did  the  Church  consider- 
able service  in  forging  ecclesiastical  and  profane  monuments  in 
favor  of  religion  and  the  truth,  he  says  :  "This  reason  prevailed 
with  some  ancient  Catholics  to  compose  some  books,  that  they 
might  refute  the  heretics  of  their  own  times  with  the  greater 
ease."  And  he  adds,  "the  same  motives  carried  the  Catholics  so 
far  as  to  invent  false  histories,  FALSE-  miracles,  and  false  lives  of  the 
saints,  to  nourish  and  keep  up  the  piety  of  the  faithful"  !* 

But,  admitting  the  genuineness  of  these  early  records  of  miracu- 
lous powers  in  the  Church,  as  evidence  that  the  writings  of  the 
j0o.9^apostolic  fathers  are  to  be  received  by  us  as  authoritative  and 
independent  of  holy  Scripture,  then,  on  the  supposition  of  a  con- 
tinued authoritative  and  independent  tradition,  that  of  the  media?- 
val  and  modern  eras,  stands  on  the  same  footing  with  the  other. 
"  In  this  respect,  then,  the  latest  and  darkest  ages  of  superstition 
and  corruption  are  inseparably  united  in  one  chain  of  evidence 
with  the  earliest  and  purest  times,  and  these  again  are  necessarily 
connected  with  the  present." 

In  conclusion,  therefore,  we  ask :  How  comes  it  to  pass  "  that 
there  are  now  no  miracles  to  authenticate  the  alleged  divine 
decrees  of  the  Church  ?" 

Till  then,  the  advocates  of  the  traditionary  scheme,  first,  recon- 
cile this  last  named  fact  with  their  high  and  arrogant  claims  in  its 
behalf;   second,   exonerate  themselves  from  the  imputation  cast 

*  Du  Pin's  Ecclesiastical  History,  etc.     Preface,  p.  8.     London.     1693. 


62 

upon  them  as  above  by  Du  Pin  ;  and  third,  prove  that  the  spurious 
miraculous  impositions  of  the  superstitious  monkery  of  the  media3- 
val  age  are  entitled  to  stand  side  by  side  with  the  miracles  of  the 
inspired  apostles,  we  shall  think  ourselves  justified — the  tradition- 
ary anathemas  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding — to  adhere  to  the 
pure  Protestant  standard,  "the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  alone!"  At 
least,  we  shall  escape  the  dilemma  inevitably  attendant  on  the 
above  traditionary  hypothesis — that,  we  mean,  of  obliterating  the 
boundary  line  of  distinctive  evidence  between  what  is,  and  what  is 
not,  truly  inspired,  miraculous  and  divine. 

At  this  point,  with  some,  Xhe  fallacy  of  the  traditionary  scheme 
is  sufficiently  apparent.  Writing,  however,  as  we  do,  for  the  spe- 
cial benefit  of  those  who  are  either  not  at  all,  or  but  partially  ac- 
quainted Avith  the  sophistry  employed  to  defend  it  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  abundant  proofs  at  command  in  support  of  the  oppo- 
site theory  on  the  other,  the  preceding  is  to  be  viewed  simply  as  in- 
troductory to  the  main  subject — Tradition. 

To  proceed.  Of  tradition,  we  are  told,  there  are  two  kinds; 
apostolical,  and  ecclesiastical  or  Catholic. 

We  will  examine  them  seriatirrh. 

I. — Apostolical  Tradition. 

By  this  we  are  to  understand,  that  the  apostles,  delivered  to  the 
bishops  of  their  times,  an  oral  creed^  supjyleinentary  to  the  New 
Testament  writings,  to  be  used  "  as  a  test  of  all  doctrines  claim- 
ing to  be  Christian,"  which  oral  creed,  it  is  alleged,  was  finally 
committed  to  writing  by  the  early  fathers,  "comprising  matter 
independent  of,  and  distinct  from,  the  truths  which  are  directly 
scriptural,"  and  hence,  that  this  oral  creed  "  ought  to  be  religiously 
guarded  by  us,  even  for  the  same  reason  that  we  reverence  and  re- 
tain that  which  is  properly  scriptural,  both  being  portions  of  the 
same  divine  treasure" — "a  treasure  of  doctrine  which  we  know  to 
have  been  embodied  in  the  confession  or  creed" — "  the  treasure  of 
apostolical  doctrines  and  Church  rules — the  rules  and  doctrines 
which  made  up  the  charter  of  Christ's  kingdom."* 

In  the  support  of  this  alleged  apostolico-oral  tradition,  the  fol- 
lowing passages  are  adduced  and  held  as  the  comnnon  property 
of  the  several  classes  of  the  advocates  of  prelacy.  "  Keep  the 
ordinances  (or  traditions f),  as  I  delivered  them  to  you."  '  "There- 
fore, brethren,  stand  fast,  and  hold  the  traditions  which  ye  have 
been  taught,  whether  by  word  or  our  epistle.""  "O  Timothy, 
keep  that  which  is  committed  to  thy  trust,  avoiding  profane  and 
vain  babblings,"  etc.'  "  Hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  loords  which 
thou  hast  heard  of  me  :" — "  That  good  thing  which  was  committed 

(1)  1  Cor.  11  :2.     (2)  2  Thess.  2  :  15.     (3)  1  Tim.  6  :  20. 
*  Keble's  Sermon  on  Primitive  Tradition.     Fourth  edition,  pp.  16,  20,  21. 
f   Yiiipai6aeis. 


68 

unto  thee,  keep  bj  the  Holy  Ghost  which  dwelleth  in  us."'  Of 
these  passages,  the  first  point  to  be  determined  is,  whether  the 
word  TRADITION  is  to  be  understood  of  Paul's  individual  teachings 
and  injunctions  as  an  inspired  apostle,  designed  to  be  received  in 
connection  with,  and  as  a  part. of,  the  sacred  canon:  or  whether,  in 
the  more  modern  sense  of  that  term,  we  are  to  understand  by  it, 
"  oral  comnninication,  eventually  deposited  in  writings,  and  handed 
down  through  successive  ages,"  as  "  independent  of"  and  distinct 
from,  the  written  word,"  and  hence,  to  be  taken  as  an  apostolic 
creed,  "  divinely  appointed  in  the  Church  as  the  touchstone  of 
canonical  Scripture  itself"*  Now,  in  opposition  to  this  latter 
sense,  we  remark, 

1.  There  is  no  evidence  in  Scrijyture  of  the  existence  of  any 
such  apostolic  creed.  So  far  from  it,  while  it  is  admitted  that, 
from  the  truths,  precepts,  ordinances  and  usages  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  taken  ,as  a  whole,  may  be  gathered  a  symmetrical  and 
harmonious  system,  analogous  to  that  of  the  diversified  machinery 
of  the  physical  universe,  yet  Christianity  is  presented  to  our  view 
in  holy  Scripture  rather  as  a  tissue  oi  facts ^  than  a  system  of  doc- 
trioies  j  the  doctrines  are  merged  in,  and  are  to  be  deduced  from 
the  facts ;  divorce  them,  and  both  are  robbed  of  their  attractive 
and  life-giving  power.  Evidence  of  this  may  be  furnished  by  a 
recurrence  to  the  life  and  actions,  and  to  the  parables,  conversa- 
tions, discourses,  etc.,  of  our  Lord  ;  and  to  Peter's  sermon  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost ;'  to  his  discourse  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,'  and 
to  Paul's  account  of  his  own  preaching  to  the  Corinthians,  in  his 
first  Epistle  to  that  Church."  By  what  argument,  then,  we  ask, 
can  we  assign  to  the  oral  teachings  apostolic,  the  form  of  a  creed, 
over  those  of  their  written  communications  ?  To  argue,  a  priori^ 
from  the  admitted  value  and  importance  of  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity, that  they  must  have  been  so  j^i'oniulged,  is  assuming 
what  must  be  proved  ;  nor  will  a  fair  construction  of  the  passages 
relied  upon  to  this  end,f  warrant  the  use  to  which  ,  they  are 
applied.  The  most  plausible  argument  adduced  by  the  tradition- 
ists  from  the  above  passages  is  by  insisting  that  the  words,  "avoid- 
ing profane  and  vain  babblings,"  etc./  involves,  necessarily,  thei 
existence  of  an  oral  formulary  or  creed.  That  the  context,  however, 
warrants  no  such  inference,  we  think  is  evident  from  the  17th 
verse  of  1  Tim.  6  :  "  Charge  them  that  are  rich  in  this  world,  that 
they  be  not  high-minded,  nor  trust  in  uncertain  riches,"  etc. ;  in 
which,  as  Paul  is  speaking,  not  of  doctrines,  not  of  creeds,  but  of 
persons;  so  it  is  fair  to  conclude,  that  the  "trust"  committed  to 
Timothy,  mentioned  in  verse  20,  was  not  an  oral  creed,  but  the 
Church  of  God  at  Ephesus,  of  whom  Timothy  had  been  left  in 
charge  by  that  apostle,  and  whom  he  was  to  labor  to  protect 
against  the   "  vain  babblings  and  oppositions  of  science  falsely  so- 

0)  1  Tim.  1  :13,  H.    (2)  Acts  2  :  14-36.     (3)  Acta  10  :  34^3.     (4)  1  Tor  1.5  :  I-H.     (5)  1  Tim. 6  :  20. 
*  Keble's  Sermon,  page  27.  t  See  quotations  above. 


64 

called,"  to  wliich  its  members  were  exposed.  The  same,  doubtless, 
holds  true  of  "the  good  thing"  spoken  of  as  committed  to  him : 
2  Tim.  1  :  14, — the  Jtock  of  Qod,  of  which,  at  that  time,  he  had  the 
oversight,  and  for  whose  benetit  he  was  to  "hold  fast  the  form  (or 
pattern,  '  v-noTvnuioiv ^^)  of  sound  words" — the  pure  doctrine — "  the 
model  or  conception  of  that  sound  teaching  which  the  apostle  had 
instilled  into  him."*  Indeed,  both  these  cases  are  precisely  analo- 
gous to  tlic  charge  subsequently  given  by  the  same  apostle  to  the 
Ephesian  "  elders"  at  "  Miletus."'  But,  what  we  deem  decisive 
of  this  point  is,  that  even  assuming  that  the  above  charges,  as 
given  by  Paul  to  Timothy,  did  contain  doctrines,  the  ground  on 
which  traditionists  "build  their  hypothesis  is  the  very  thing  which 
would  lead  us  to  reject  it."  If  the  "  deposit"  had  been  committed 
to  Timothy  after  the  canon  of  Scripture  had  been  completed,  then 
there  might  have  been  some  evidence  of  its  being  something  "  in- 
dependent of"  the  written  word ;  but,  as  at  the  time  "  the  truths 
and  rules  were  almost  or  wholly  unwritten,"  it  is  much  more  than 
probable,  that  these  inspired  teachers  embraced  every  thing  of  im- 
portance in  their  letters  to  individuals  and  the  churches."f  We 
remark, 

2.  That  in  the  writings  of  the  earliest  fathers^  there  is  no  recognition 
of  the  existence  of  any  such  apostolico-traditionary  creed  as  is  here 
claimed.  On  all  points  of  doctrine,  their  standard  of  appeal  was 
"  Holy  Scripture  ;"  else,  wherefore  the  niimerous  formularies  pre- 
pared by  their  own  hands  ?  "In  the  second  and  third  ages  of  the 
Church,"  it  is  affirmed,  "there  were  as  many  creeds  as  authors; 
and  the  same  author  sets  down  the  creed  after  a  different  manner, 
in  several  places  of  his  works.":}:  This,  certainh^,  on  the  hjqjothe- 
sis  of  the  existence  of  a  traditionary  creed  apostolic,  was  plainly  a 
work  of  "idle  supererogation" — "of  self-sufficient  presumption."^ 
Nor  should  we  overlook  the  fact  in  regard  to  the  so-called  "iipos- 
tles'  Creed,"  that,  when  urged  upon  the  Council  of  Florence,  com- 
posed of  141  Greek  bishops,  they  indignantly  exclaimed,  "We 
neither  have,  nor  do  we  know  any  creed  of  the  apostles."!  "Many 
of  the  ancient  fathers,  namely,  Justin  Martyr,  Irenseus,  Clem. 
Alexandrinus,  Origen,.  Tertulliau,  and  Eusebius,  are  silent  "as  to 
the  existence  of  any  such  a  creed."  Other  creeds  were  early  used 
in  the  oriental  churches,  and  others  again  made  at  the  CEcumenical 
Councils  of  Nice  and  Constantinople,  without  any  mention  of  the 
apostles'  creed.  Many  other  arguments  are  found  in  Usher,  Vos- 
sius,  etc.,  which  weaken  the  hypothesis  by  which  the  apostolical 
origin  of  this  creed  is  supported."^ 

Oar  next  topic  of  remark  relates  to, 

(1)  Acts  20  1  17-'28. 
♦  Alexander's  Anglo-Cathollcisni,  &c.,  p.  54. 

t  Rev.  J.  Spence,  M.A.,  on  the  Tractarian  Heresy.     London  :  1847,  p.  10. 
X  Buck's  Theological  Dictioiuiry,  Art.  Creed. 
§  Alexander's  Ans;.  Cath.,  p.  65.  ||  Sponce,  p.  14. 

1[  Spanheim"s  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  147. 


•^5 

II. — Catholic  or  Ecclesiastical  Tradition. 

By  Catholic  trrvdition,  we  arc  to  understand  the  writmgs  of  the 
earlier  Fathers,  alias  the  voice  of  the  ancient  Church.  These,  to- 
gether with  all  the  extant  legends  of  the  Church  of  Eome,  both 
written  and  unwritten, — the  former  of  which,  though  consisting, 
besides  the  apocr3'phal  writings,  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  and 
thirty-five  large  folio  i;oZ;mes,*  and  which  bear  a  very  small  pro- 
portion to  those  of  the  latter — it  is  alleged,  cons'itute  the  only  au- 
thoritative interpreter  of  revealed  truth,  whether  ol  doctrine,  or  of 
discipline,  from  whose  decision  there  is  no  appeal. 

True,  the  sui-papal  traditionists  distinguish  between  Catholic  or 
ecclesiastical  tradition,  which  they  limit  to  the  patristic  lore  of  the 
first  three  or  four  centuries,  and  the  written  and  unwritten  legend- 
ary appendages  thereto  of  the  Church  of  liome  :  not,  however,  on 
the  ground  of  "  an  a  priori  question  on  the  value  of  tradition  in 
itself,  or  at  an  earlier  period  of  the  Church  ;  or  of  such  traditions, 
as,  though  not  contained  in  Scripture,  are  primitive,  universal,  and 
apostolical;"  but  as  a  question  "  purely  historical."  The  Romish 
traditions,  it  is  alleged,  "are  not  such,  but,  on  the  contrary,  are  re- 
pugnant to  Scripture,"  and  hence  are  not  to  be  received,"f 

The  Church  of  Rome,  however,  claims  that  all  her  2^^'esent  tra- 
ditions are  to  be  received  as  of  equal  validity  with  the  written 
word,  because  she  holds  them.  But  the  st<Z)-papal  traditionists 
urge  the  same  claim  in  behalf  of  their  admitted  traditions.  Hear 
the  poet-laureate  Keble,  of  the  University  of  Oxford,  on  this  sub- 
ject:— 

"  With  relation  to  the  supreme  authority  of  inspired  Scripture,"  says  he,  "  it 
stands  thus : — Catholic  tradition  teaches  revealed  truth,  Scripture  proves  it ; 
Scripture  is  the  document  of  faith,  tradition  the  witness  of  it ;  the  true  creed 
is  the  Catholic  interpretation  of  Scripture,  or  scripturally-proved  tradition; 
Scripture  by  itself  teaches  mediately,  and  proves  decisively ;  Scripture  and  tradi- 
tion token  together^  are  the  joint  rule  of  faith. "% 

So,  another  writer : — "  We  do  not  make  Scripture  the  rule  of 
our  faith,  but  that  other  things  in  their  kind  are  rules  likewise  ;  in 
such  sort  that  it  is  not  safe,  without  respect  had  unto  them,  to  judge 
things  by  the  Scripture  alone."§ 

And  another. — "  The  intelligible  argument  of  ultra-Protestant- 
ism may  be  taken,  and  w^  may  say,  *  the  Bible,  and  nothing  but 
the  Bible  ;'  hut  this  is  an  unthankful  rejection  of  another  great  gift^^ 
(viz..  Catholic  tradition)  '■^  equally  from  Qod^  such  as  no  true  Angli- 
can can  tolerate."! 

#These  volumes  consist,  first,  of  the  Apostolical  Fathers,  thirty-five  vole,  folio;  siec- 
ond,  of  the  Romish  Decretals,  eight  vols,  folio;  third,  of  the  Bulls  of  the  Popes,  ttn 
vols,  folio;  fourth,  of  the  Canons  and  Decretals  of  Councils,  thirty-one  vols,  folio;  and 
fifth,  of  the  Acta  Sanctorum,  or  the  Acts  of  the  S&ints,  fifty-one  vols,  folio. 

t  Tract  77,  p.  13. 

j  Catena  Patrum.  Appendix  of  Sermon  on  Primitive  Tradition,  3d  Ed.  p.  2,  1837. 

\  Tract  90,  p.  11.'  ||  Tract  71,  p.  8. 

5 


66 

Nor  do  these  writers,  any  more  than  the  Romanists,  confine 
themselves  to  ■written  traditions.  Kcble,  on  this  subject,  holds  the 
following  language.  Having  spoken  of  "  certain  remains  or  frag- 
ments of  the  treasure  of  apostolical  doctrines  and  church  rules;" 
in  other  words,  an  oral  law,  "  independent  of,  and  distinct  from, 
the  truths  which  are  directly  scriptural ;"  he  remarks  : 
•  "  It  is  as  an  unwritten  sj^stem  which  the  holy  writers  spoke  of, 
when  they  so  earnestly  recommended  '  the  deposit,'  '  the  command- 
ment,' the  '  word  heard  from  the  beginning,'  to  the  reverential 
care  Ijoth  of  pastors  and  of  all  Christian  people."  And  again  :  "  If 
we  will  be  impartial,"  says  he,  "  we  cannot  hide  it  from  ourselves, 
that  His  unwritten  word,  if  it  can  be  any  how  authenticated,  miist 
neoessarily  demand  the  same  reverence  from  us  ;  and  for  exactly  the 
same  reason  :  because  it  is  ins  word."* 

These  views,  however,  it  will  be  said,  belong  to  the  Trac- 
tarian  school,  and  are  not  therefore  to  be  taken  as  the  criterion 
of  the  current  sentiment  on  this  subject.  Let  us  then  pass 
to  the  standard  of  appeal,  "  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer^''^-\  as  ex- 
ponent of  the  nature  and  use — the  value — of  Catholic  tradition. 
In  the  preface  of  the  ordination  service,  our  knowledge  of  what 
constitutes  the  orders  of  the  Christian  ministry,  is  made  equally 
dependent  on  our  "  diligently  reading  holy  Scripture  and  ancient 
authors^  Nor  this  only.  The  very  reading  of  the  Scriptures  and 
the  offering  up  of  prayers  in  the  church,  is  set  forth  in  the  preface 
of  that  book  as  having  "  the  first  original  and  ground  thereof"  in 
primitive  practice — as  "  the  godly  and  decent  order  of  the  ancient 
Fathers."  So  too,  of  the  ordination  vows.  They  imply  that 
Scripture  requires  external  aid  for  its  due  interpretation :  for  the 
ordained  thereby  engage  to  "  be  diligent"  not  only  "  in  reading 
holy  Scriptures,"  but  also  "  in  such  studies  as  help  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  same ;"  and  among  such  studies,  must  not  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  Fathers  hold  an  important  place  ?  A  canon  of  the 
convocation  of  1571,  which  is  a  part  of  the  law  of  the  Church, 
commands  preachers  "to  be  careful  never  to  teach  anything  in 
their  sermons,  as  if  to  be  religiously  held  and  believed  by  the  peo- 
ple, but  what  is  agreeable  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament, and  collected  from  that  very  doctrine  by  the  Catholic  Fathers 
and  ancient  BishopsJ^ 

Now,  true :  the  language  employed  on  the  subject  of  Catholic 
tradition  in  the  passages  here  quoted,  is  more  qualified  and  hence 
less  pernicious,  at  least  in  its  direct  effects  upon  ordinary  minds, 
than  that  current  with  the  less  scrupulous  Tractarian.  Still,  the 
question  is,  whether,  from  its  evidently  equivocal  character,  it  is  not 
only  liable  to,  but  warrants,  that  very  construction  for  which  the 
Tractarian  contends  ?  It  is  sufRcient  to  our  purpose  to  insist,  that 
the  simple  circumstance  of  coupling  Catholic  Tradition — "  ancient 

*  Rebel's  Caten.  Pat.,  etc.,  pp.  26,  31. 
t  See  quotations  at  the  heail  of  this  essay. 


67 

authors" — with  "  Holy  iScripture,"  is  suggestive  of  their  co-ordinate 
authority ;  and,  taken  in  connection  with  the  passages  quoted  on 
pages  62,  63,  as  the  common  basis  of  traditionists  of  all  grades  for  the 
support  of  their  apostolico-oral  traditionary  theory,  the  only  con- 
sistent inference  is  that  of  the  Tractarian,  via. :  that  the  so-called 
*'  ultra-Protestant"  plea  of  '  the  Bible,  and  nothing  but  the  Bible,' 
is  an  unthankful  rejection  of  another  great  gift,"  (Catholic  tradition') 
as  "  equally  from  God,"  and  "  Which  no  true  Anglican  can  tolerate, ' 

The  conclusion,  according  to  our  mathematical  calculus,  is,  that 
the  difference  in  the  nature,  use  and  value  of  Catholic  tradition,  as 
advocated  by  the  Romanist  and  the  Tractarian,  and  as  set  forth  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  is  as  the  difference  between  four  and 
twice  two.  As  with  the  Romanist,  so,  "  Scripture  is  not,  on 
Anglican  principles,  the  Rule  of  Faith."*  *'  As  it  is,  by  the  gracious 
providence  of  Almighty  God,  the  points  of  Catholic  consent, 
known  by  tradition,  constitute  the  knots  and  ties  of  the  whole 
system,"f  "  Acknowledging  Scripture  as  the  written  charter,  and 
tradition  as  the  common  law,  whereby  both  the  validity  and  prac- 
tical meaning  of  that  charter  is  ascertained,"  the  Church  "  ve- 
nerates both  as  inseparable  members  of  one  great  providential 
system.":}; 

Now,  if  the  above  statements,  taken. as  a  whole,  make  not  Tra- 
dition the  primary,  and  holy  Scripture  the  secondary,  teacher  of 
divine  truth,  we  know  not  the  meaning  of  words.  According  to 
them,  we  are  to  search  the  inspired  word  of  God,  not  as  the  one 
authoritative,  adequate  rule  of  faith,  but  as  the  document  of  what 
this  tradition  teaches ;  we  are  to  stud}^  the  Scriptures,  not  in  order 
to*  ascertain  simply  God's  revealed  will,  but  to  prove  tradition  by 
scriptural  evidence ;  and  the  standard  of  revelation  is  no  longer 
the  Bible  alone,  that  is,  the  inspired  word  of  the  eternal  God  in  its 
plain  and  obvious  meaning,  but  "  Scripture  and  tradition,  taken 
together,  are  the  joint  rule  of  faith"! 

But  we  are  here  reminded  by  that  class  of  traditionists  who 
claim  the  appellation  of  "  Evangelical,"  that  the  Vlth  and  XXth 
of  the  XXXIX  Articles  of  the  Anglican  and  American  Episcopal 
Church,  plainly  repudiate  the  sense  which  is  here  attached  to  Ca- 
tholic tradition.     The  Vlth  article  says — 

"  Holy  Scripture  containeth  all  things  necessary  to  salvation  :  so  that  what- 
soever is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of 
any  man  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  the  faith,  or  be  thought  re- 
quisite or  necessary  to  salvation." 

And  the  XXth  article  reads  thus : 

"The  Church  hath  power  to  decree  rites  or  ceremonies,  and  authority  in  con- 
troversies of  faith :  and  yet  it  is  not  lawful  for  the  Church  to  ordain  anything 
that  is  contrary  to  God's  word  written ,  neither  may  it  so  expound  one  place  of 
Scripture  that  it  be  repugnant  to  another." 

♦  Tract  90,  p.  11.  t  Keble's  Caten,  Pat.,  p.  41.  J   lb.,  p.  74. 


68 

And  it  declares  fhe  Churcli  simply  "  to  be  a  witness  and  keeper 
of  Holy  Writ,"  etc. 

These  articles,  it  is  contended,  taken  in  connection  witti  the 
quotations  from  the  other  parts  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
show  that  the  coupling  of  "  ancient  authors"  with  "  holy  Scrip- 
ture" proves  that  the  former  is  intended  to  be  understood  as  swb- 
ordinate  to  the  latter. 

'J^o  this,  however,  we  reply,  that  the  same  feature  is  strikingly 
peculiar  to  the  writings  of  the  Oxford  tractators.  The  very  same 
Keble,  who  in  one  place  of  his  Catena  Patrum  declares  that 
"  Scripture  and  tradition,  taken  together,  are  the  joint  rule  of 
faith ;"  in  another  most  explicitly  affirms  that  "  Scripture  is  the 
sole  and  imramountrxAe  of  faith"  !*  And,  as  it  regards  the  Church 
of  Eome,  what  "  power"  docs  she  claim  beyond  that  set  forth  in 
the  XXth  article  above?  And  in  the  exercise  of  that  "power," 
who  needs  to  be  told  that  she  most  indignantly  repels  the  charge 
of  having  ordained,  either  in  her  written  or  unwritten  traditions, 
'*  anything  that  is  contrary  to  God's  word  written,"  or  that  she  has 
so  expounded  "  one  place  of  Scripture,  that  it  be  repugnant  to 
another."  True,  the  so-called  "  ultra-Protestants"  hold  and  affirm 
that  they  can  prove  her  guilty,  in  numerous  instances,  of  having 
both  added  to  and  taken  from  "  Holy  Scripture,"  not  only,  but  of 
falsifying  and  perverting  "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints." 
Indeed,  they  contend  that  these  superadded  traditionary  legends, 
etc.,  as  in  the  case  of  the  "  corruptions  of  the  word  of  God  by 
the  traditions  of  the  elders"  of  the  Jewish  Church,  furnish  the 
strongest,  though  not  the  only,  evidence  of  her  apostasy  from 
"  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ." 

But  on  this  point  the  so-called  ultra-Protestant  has  to  conflict 
with  the  Protean  workings  of  the  Romish  claim  of  infallibility^ 
which,  as  we  have  said, — and  as  she  had  the  sagacity  at  an  early 
period  to  perceive, — considering  the  nature  and  importance  of  the 
questions  at  issue,  is  a  fundamental  attribute  of  the  standard  of 
appeal.  With  her,  a  chain  less  inflexible,  and  at  the  same  time 
less  changeable,  would  have  failed  to  enthrall  Christendom  under 
her  dominion.  Having  assumed — what  all  admit — that  insjnration 
is  the  basis  of  infallibility,  she  assumed  also  that  the  interpreter 
must  be  infallible.  On  what  grounds?  She  answers:  On  that 
of  the  promise  made  by  Christ  to  "the  twelve,"  "Lo,  I  am  with 
you  all  days,  even  unto  the  ages  of  ages."f  The  argument  is, — 
Christ  was  infallible  ;  and  so  the  apostles^  by  virtue  of  his  author- 
ity in  imparting  to  them  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  gift,  she 
affirms,  resided  pre-eminently  in  Peter  as  the  first  bishop,  jure 
divino,  of  the  see  of  Rome,  and  by  virtue  of  the  same  authority, 
transmitted  by  him  to  his  successors. 

And,  indeed,  tradition,  viewed  in  the  aspect  of  tlie  authoritative 

*  Compare  Caten.  Pat.,  or  Prim.  Trad,  recognized  by  Scrip.  Ap.  p.  2,  with  p.  31. 
t  Douay  version. 


09 

mterprcter  of  Holy  Writ,  and  wielded  by  "  the  Clmrch,"  elotlied, 
as  is  alleged,  with  "  power  to  decree  rites  and  ceremonies,"  and 
having  "  authority  in  controversies  of  faith,"  is  valueless  when 
sunk  below  the  Romish  standard.  As  a  theory,  it  involves  the 
hypothesis  of  development.  That  is,  it  represents  "  the  Chris- 
tian scheme  contained  in  the  New  Testament  as  a  mere  imperfect 
and  incomplete  outline,  ichich  was  to  he  filled  up  hy  the  CliurcK''  in 
after  ages.  And  whether  the  claim  urged  in  its  behalf  regards  it 
either  as  "  paramount  to  Scripture,  or  equal  to  Scripture,  or  con- 
current with  it,  or,  which  comes  to  the  very  same  thing,  decisive 
as  to  the  interpretation  of  Scriptui'e,"  there  exists  the  same  neces- 
sity to  sustain  it  by  miraculous  evidence,  as  that  which  authenti- 
cated the  inspiration  of  the  doctrines,  etc.,  originally  promulged 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

We  are  not  surprised,  therefore,  to  find  that  the  Oxford 
tractators,  as  well  from  their  regard  to  consistenpy  as_  from 
logical  deduction,  recognize  tliis  principle  in  their  writings. 
Keble  speaks  of  those  minds  as  in  "error,"  which  reject  the 
notion  of  a  rule  of  faith  made  up  of  Scripture  and  tradi- 
tion together,  on  the  ground  that  Scripture  is  infallible,  tradi- 
tion merely  historical ;"  and  he  adds,  "  They  appear  to  reason  as  if 
there  could  be  no  faith  without  demonstrative  infallible  evidence."* 
In  other  words,  such  demand — "  What  sigii  showest  thou  that  we 
may  believe"  that  Catholic  tradition  is  equally  infallible  with  "holy 
Scripture"  ?  But  finding  it  inconvenient  to  furnibh  the  "  sign," 
implicit  faith  in  traditional  iiifiillibility  is  modestly  offered  as  a 
suitable  substitute  for  "  demonstrative"  or  miraculous  "evidence." 
A  less  objectionable  source  of  authority  with  the  evangelical  school 
to  the  same  effect,  however,  can  be  adduced.  Speaking  of  the  en- 
dowments of  the  early  fathers,  bishops,  doctors,  etc.,  even  Arch- 
bishop Wake  remarks,  "  They  were  endued  with  a  large  portion  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  as  such,  could  hardly  err  in  what  they 
delivered  as  the  gospel  of  Christ."t  So  the  distinguished  Dr. 
Waterland,  having  mentioned  their  "  admirable  endowments,  ordi- 
nary and  eoi^moriimar?/,"  and  that  " great  weight"  was  added  "to 
their  testimony  or  doctrine"  through  the  latter  as  a  "  probable  rule 
of  interpretation,"  he  says  that  "  the  Charismata,  the  extraordinary 
gifts,  were  then  frequent,"  and  that  they  ^^  visibly  rested  in  and 
upon  the  Church,  and  there  only.":|;  "Visibly?"  Indeed!  We 
are  then,  I  suppose,  to  understand  the  learned  doctor  to  affirm  the 
continuance  in  the  primitive  ^o■s^ apostolic  age  of  the  Church,  of 
the  Pentecostal  cloven  tongues  of  fire  ?  Surely  this  passage  must 
have  escaped  the  eye  of  the  poet-laureate  of  Oxford,  or  it  had 
saved  him  the  necessity  of  an  apology  for  the  absence  of  "  demon- 
strative infallible  evidence"  of  the  inspiration  of  apostolical  tradi- 
tion !     Nor  this  only.     Had  he  been  familiar  with  the  sermon  of 

*  Serm.  on  Prim.  Trad.,  p.  82.  f  Wake's  Apnst.  Fathers,  c.  X  p   110. 

X  Waterland  on  the  Trui.  Camb.Ed.     1800.     pp.  369,382. 


70 

the  Right  Rev.  Bishop  McCoskrej  of  Michigan,  entitled,  "  Episco- 
pal Bishops  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,."  he  had  seen  almost  at 
a  glance,  the  basis  of  the  perpetuity  of  this,  with  other  apostolic 
gifts.  That  learned  prelate,  in  descanting  on  the  passage :  "  Aa 
my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you,"  etc.,  remarks, — "  that 
he  (Christ)  transferred  the  power  he  received  from  God  his  Father, 
the  words  of  the  text  most  fully  declare." — "He  was,  as  the  apostle 
declares,  the  head  of  the  body — consequently  this  headship  Avas 
transferred,  etc."*  "  To  whom  ?  To  none  other  than  the  apostles."f 
But  in  what  did  this  headship  consist  ?  In  the  possession,  by  the 
apostles,  of  "  all  the  power  necessary  to  preserve  and  regulate  the 
body," — in  the  exercise  of  which  power  "  they  could  not  err,^^  etc.:|: 

The  apostles,  then,  were  inspired.  But,  "  had  the  apostles  suc- 
cessors ?"  "  One  of  the  very  first  acts  they  did  after  they  received 
the  apostolic  office,"  says  the  bishop,  "  was  to  transfer  the  very  same 
power  they  had  received  from  Christ."  We  only  add  in  conclusion 
on  this  subject,  that  the  comparatively  youthful  bishop  of  Michi- 
gan without  doubt  borrowed  the  above  sentiment  from  that  vener- 
able patriarch  of  the  so-called  Evangelical  or  Low  Church  party, 
Bishop  Grisw^old,  late  of  the  eastern  diocese,  who,  in  a  sermon  "on 
the  Apostolic  Office,"  speaking  of  "  the  ministry"  which  Christ 
"  actually  did  give"  to  his  apostles,  declares  it  to  have  been  "such 
as  the  Father  had  given  him ;  he  appoints  them  to  the  office  which 
he  was  leaving,"§  which  ^' office''^  Christ  "  promised  always  to  be 
with,"  etc.| 

And  hence,  as  remarked  above,  (pp.  59  and  60,)  the  origin  of 
the  argument  for  the  infallibility  of  Catholic  tradition  by  the 
Romanists.  Christ  was  infallible,  and  so  his  apostles,  b}''  virtue  of 
the  transfer  of  his  headship  to  them,  and  of  theirs  to  their  succes- 
sors. And,  in  confirmation  of  the  identity,  in  all  essential  points, 
of  the  various  schemes  of  traditionists  regarding  the  matter  in 
hand,  we  now  add,  that,  in  deciding  the  question  as  to  what  is 
genuine  tradition  and  what  spurious,  all  unite  in  subjecting  it  to 
the  same  test,  that  of  the  famous  maxim  of  Vincent  of  Lerins — 

"  QUOT)    UBIQUE,    QUOD   SEMPER,    QUOD   AB  OMNIBUS    OREDITUM   ESt" 

"  that  luhich  has  been  believed  everywhere,  always,  and  by  alV^ 

This  test  was  put  forth  by  Vincent,  a  monk  of  the  fifth  century, 
under  the  specious  plea,  that  it  was  "  extremely  necessary  to  apply 
the  sense  of  the  Catholic  Church  to  the  Scriptures,  as  a  ride  to  a  line^ 
"  For  us,"  he  says,  "  who  are  in  the  bosom  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
it  ought  to  be  our  first  and  principal  care  to  choose  such  doctrines 
as  we  find  to  have  been  believed  in  all  places,  at  all  times,  and  by 
all  the  faithful,"  The  tradition  which  is  found  to  abide  this  ordeal, 
may  be  regarded  as  of  divine  authority,  and  hence  an  infallible 

*  Sermon,  &c.,  p.  7.  t  lb.,  p.  9.  J  lb.,  pp.  7,  8,  and  17. 

§  Tracts  on  the  Church.     No.  I,  Bishop  Griswold  on  the  Apost.  Succ,  p.  5. 

0  lb.,  p  7. 


n 

standard  of  appeal  in  distinguisliing  "  tTie  true  Catholic  faitli  from 
the  vitiations  of  heresy  !" 

This  test,  we  repeat, — -the  legitimate  offspring  of  Eomanism,  is 
claimed  and  used  to  the  same  end.  alike  by  the  Tractarian,  and  by  High 
and  Low  Churchmen.  That  it  is  insufficient  to  that  end,  not  only, 
\)\\i  perilous  to  the  cause  of  evangelic  truth,  we  think  can  be  made 
satisfactorily  to  appear  from  the  following  considerations  : — 

1.  As  a  test,  it  is  inapplicahle.  Differences  of  opinion  have 
given  rise  to  controversies  on  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the 
gospel,  even  from  "  the  apostle's  times."  But  the  Catholic  unity 
required  by  this  rule,  in  discriminating  between  "  the  divine  and 
the  human  amongst  many  different  conflicting  traditions  and  opin- 
ions," excludes  controversy.  It  hence  becomes  practically  inopera- 
tive., and  Avorks  its  own  ruin.     But  in  addition  to  this, 

2.  It  is  unsatisfactory.  Mere  unanimity  of  opinion,  whether  ap- 
plicable to  the  early  Fathers,  or  to  the  age  of  Vincent,  is  no  vahd 
proof  that  it  was  of  divine  authority.  The  circumstance  of  prox- 
imity of  the  former  to  apostolic  times,  and  of  the  advantages  of  the 
latter  in  the  Vth  century  in  determining  which  were  authentic 
and  which  were  spurious  among  the  writings,  etc.,  of  the  preceding 
age,  and  which  were  doubtless  calculated  in  an  eminent  degree  to 
promote  unity  of  opinion  in  the  Church,  will  by  no  means  apply  to 
her  subsequent  history.  Since  the  introduction  of  this  maxim  by 
the  Romish  monk,  the  Church  has  been  literally  rocked  in  the 
cradle  of  revolution.  Traditions,  written  and  unwritten,  claiming 
equal  authority  with  those  of  earlier  origin,  have  been  multiplied 
beyond  computation.  And,  if  we  add  to  these  the  ages  of  dark- 
ness and  superstition  which  have  intervened,  what  considerate 
mind  Avould  risk  its  faith  bj^  an  appeal  to  such  a  test !  Again  we 
remark, 

3.  It  is  superfluous.  Why,  we  ask,  institute  a  rule  by  which  to 
arrive  at  a  knowledge  of  doctrines,  etc.,  believed  everywhere,  at 
all  times,  and  by  all?  These  terms  must,  certainly,  be  inclusive 
of  the  Kew  Testament  age — the  doctrines  taught,  and  the  ministry, 
ordinances,  rites,  etc.,  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  apostles.  If, 
therefore,  the  things  to  be  believed  in  accordance  with  the  applica- 
tion of  this  rule,  harmonize  throughout  with  those  taught  bv 
Christ  and  his  apostles,  they  being  acknowledgedly  infallible,  and 
hence  universally  binding  upon  all,  why  not  repair  at  once  to  the 
original  document?  Why  be  tied  down  "to  expound  Scripture 
according  to  the  consent  of  the  ancient  Fathers  "  ?  Wherefore  be 
told,  that  "  we  must  look  back  through  the  long  mist  of  years, 
whenever  we  want  to  know  what  is  good  and  evil  "  ?■•"■  And,  if 
the  alleged  unvarying  Catholic  tradition  to  which  this  rule  points 
us  should  be  found  to  teach  things  not  taught  .in  the  original  docu- 
ment, what  then  ?  Ah,  this  is  the  rub.  Take  for  example,  the 
article  of  Eomish  celibacy,  which  comes  "  nearer  perhaps  than  any 

*  Se well's  Christian  Morals,  p.  15, 


^"  72 

tHing  else  to  Vincent's  rule." — "  Tcrtullian  and  Cyprian  taught, 
that  in  and  by  itself,  it  was  a  more  holy  state  than  matrimony-^ 
especially  in  the  case  of  the  clergy  not  married  before  ordination" 
— "  and  so  commended  it  to  the  admiration  of  the  believers,  that 
this  doctrine  became,  ere  long,  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church."* 
Mark.  Of  the  Catholic  Church  :  not  of  Iloly  Scripture,  unless  in- 
deed the  apostle  Peter's  having  had  a  wife,'  can  be  adduced  in 
proof !  And  yet  our  traditionists,  upon  the  strength  of  Vincent's 
rule,  insist  upon  our  adoption  of  this  "  doctrine"  as. an  article  of 
our  faith !  One  thing  is  certain.  Consistency  requires  either 
the  adoption  of  the  "  doctrine,"  or  the  repudiation  of  the  rule. 
The  responsibility  of  this  dilemma  rests  with  the  originators  and 
advocates  of  the  XXth  of  the  XXXIX  articles,  who,  maugre  the 
guards  against  its  abuse,  yet  declare  that  "the  Church  hath  power 
to  decree  rites  or  ceremonies^''  etc.  For,  this  "  power"  of  the  Church 
once  asserted,  all  history  shows  that  her  love  of  its  exercise  early 
induced  the  practical  substitution  of  the  phraseology — '  not  ex- 
pressly forbidden^ — in  the  place  of,  "  contrary  to,  God's  word  writ- 
ten." Nor  need  the  reader  be  informed,  that  this  assumed  license 
by  "  the  Church,"  soon  originated  a  rival  system  of  "  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men,""  to  that  "  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets,  of  which  Jesus  Christ  is  the  chief-corner- 
stone."^ Now,  that  Vincent's  rule  was  designed  as  the  prop  to 
this  antichristian  traditionary  system,  will  appear, 

4.  From  a  view  of  its  Judaic  character.  The  Jews  had  their  tra- 
ditions— the  Cabala,  which  they  believed  to  contain  an  explana- 
tion of  the  Sinai  Law,  which  Cabala  was  given  by  God  himself  to 
Moses  ;  and  that  without  these  traditions,  the  law  itself  was  not  a 
sufficient  rule  of  faith.  Traditionists  tell  us,  that  they  "  do  not 
make  Scripture  the  rule  of  their  faith,  but  that  other  things  in 
their  place"  (Catholic  tradition)  "  are  rules  likewise ;  in  such  sort 
that  it  is  not  safe,  without  respect  had  unto  them,  to  judge  things  hy 
the  Scripture  alone.''^  "  Scripture  and  tradition,  taken  together,  are 
the  joint  rule  of  FaiihP  Thus  it  is  they  Judaize  the  sj^stem  of 
Bcriptural  interpretation.  Its  antichristian  character  may  be 
gathered, 

First,  from  our  blessed  Lord's  frequent  denunciations  of  the  Jew- 
ish traditions.  "  For  laying  aside  the  commandments  of  God," 
says  he,  "  i/e  hold  the  traditions  of  meny  *  And  again,  "  Why,"  he 
demands,  "do  ye  transgress  the  commandment  of  God  by  your 
tradition?^''  ^  And  in  another  place  he  accuses  them  of  "making 
the  Word  of  God  of  none  effect  through  their  tradition^^  Loud  ad- 
monitions, these,  to  the  Church,  in  all  future  ages !  But  to  the 
above,  and  to  the  same  end,  we  add. 

Second,  Those  passages  which  affirm  the  absolute  sufficiency  and 
supremacy  of  holy  Scripture,  as  its  own  interpreter — "  comparing 

(1)  Matt.  8:14.    (2)  Mntt.  1.5  :  0.    (3)  F,ph. 2  :  20.    (4)  Mnrk  7  :  8.    (.5)  Matt.  15  :  3.    (6)  Mark  7  :  13 
*  Alexander's  Anglo-Cath.,  etc.,  pp.  82,  83. 


73 

Spiritual  things  with  spiritual." '  Take  tlie  following.  "  The  law 
of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul ;  the  testimony  of  the 
Lord  is  sitre,  making  wise  the  simple."^  "To  the  law  and  the 
testimony  :  if  we  speak  not  according  to  this  luord,  it  is  because  there 
is  no  light  in  them."'  "  They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets  ;  let 
them  hear  themy  *  "  Search  the  Scriptures  ;  for  in  them  ye  think 
ye  have  eternal  life.""  "  Fron  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  holy 
Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation  through 
faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correc- 
tion, for  instruction  in  righteousness :  that  the  man  of  God  may  be 
perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  ALL  good  works." "  Surely, 
such  passages  as  these,  one  would  suppose,  were  sufficiently  ex- 
plicit. They  set  forth,  plainly  and  fully  as  language  can  speak, 
the  absolute  sufficiency  and  supremacy  of  holy  Scripture  as  the  only 
divinely  authorized  standard  rule  of  faith.  Any  thing  that  does  not 
fall  within  this  rule,  so  far  as  authentic,  we  may  receive,  "  but  not 
as  a  portion  of  the  Christian  Revelation;  we  may  practice,  but  not 
as  a  jjortion  of  the  divine  institutions  essential  to  a  Christian  Clmrch, 
and  binding  on  all  men  in  all  ages.  When  the  apostle  Paul  gave 
his  advice  on  matters  respecting  which  he  '  had  no  commandment 
from  the  Lord,'  he,  of  course,  thought  that  what  he  was  recom- 
mending was  good;  but,  so  far  was  he  from  presuming  to  put  it 
forth  as  a  divine  command,  that  he  expressly  notified  the  contrary. 
Let  us  not  think  to  manifest  our  pious  humility  by  reversing  the 
apostle's  procedure !"     To  the  above,  may  be  added  the  fact, 

5.  That  the  early  fathers  themselves  disclaim  that  authority  in  hehalf 
of  their  ivritings  which  traditionists  affirm.  PoLYCARP,  who,  ac- 
cording to  Eusebius,  "  had  been  instructed  by  the  Apostles,  and 
had  familiar  intercourse  with  many  that  had  seen  Christ,"  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Philippians  says  : 

"Neither  am  I  nor  is  any  one  like  me,  able  to  follow,  the  wisdom  of  the 
blessed  and  illustrious  Paul,  who,  being  among  you,  in  presence  of  the  men  who 
then  lived,  taught  accurately  and  surelij  the  word  of  truths  and  who,  after  he  was 
gone,  wrote  to  you  an  epistle,  which,  if  you  carefully  study,  ye  shall  be  able  to 
build  yourselves  up  in  the  faith  which  has  been  delivered  to  you,  and  'which  is 
the  mother  of  us  all.'  "* 

Iren^^us,  the  disciple  of  Polycarp,  and  who  wrote  in  the 
second  century,  says : 

"  We  do  not  know  the  plan  of  our  salvation  through  any  others  than  those  by 
whom  the  Gospel  has  come  to  us,  which  indeed  they  first  preached ;  but,  after- 
wards, by  the  will  of  God,  delivered  it  to  us  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  ground 
AND  PILLAR  of  our  faith."f 

Origen,  in  his  commentaries  on  Matthew,  speaks  of 

(1)  1  Cor.  2  :  13.     (2)Ps.  19:7.    (3)13.8:20.    (4)  Lk.  16  :  29.     (.5)  John  5  :  39.    (6)  2  Tim.  3  :  15-17. 
*  Hefele,  Patrum  Apost.  Opera,  p.  118.  f  Iran.  Adv.  Hacres,  3  :  1. 


74 

"  Tho  whole  word  of  God  as  the  only  perfect  and  proper  means  of  afiFording 
to  those  who  wish  to  learn,  one  safe  voice  amidst  discordant  sounds." 

Justin  Martyr,  in  his  dialogues  with  Trypho,  the  Jew,  says, 

"  We  are  commanded  by  Christ  to  obey  nOt  the  dogmas  of  men,  but  the  doc- 
trines preached  by  tke  holy  prophets,  and  taught  by  himP     And, 

Augustine,  whose  writings  are  often  appealed  to  by  tradition- 
ists,  says, 

"  We  ought  not  to  esteem  the  writings  of  any  men,  even  although  Catholics, 
and  men  of  repute,  as  we  do  the  canonical  Scriptures,  as  if  it  were  not  lawful 
for  us,  consistently  with  the  honor  due  to  such  men,  to  condemn  and  repudiate 
in  their  writings  any  thing  which  they  have  delivered  contrary  to  truth,  as  that 
has  been  understood  through  divine  assistance,  either  by  others  or  by  ourselves. 
This  I  myself  do  in  reference  to  the  writings  of  others,  and  this  I  wish  my 
readers  to  do  with  me."* 

Now,  in  what  terms,  we  deferentially  ask,  could  the  sufficiency 
and  supremacy  of  Scripture  be  more  explicitly  declared  ?  It  is 
true,  Paul  exhorts  us  to  hold  fast  the  "traditions."  But  it  is 
equally  true  from  2  Thess.  2  :  15,  ,  that  these  traditions  were 
written  as  well  as  spoken,  that  is,  what  was  delivered  orally  to  one 
church  was  conveyed  in  letters  to  others,  so  that  the  &riptures 
contain  the  whole  word  of  God.  Would  that  our  zealous  modern 
traditionists  might  be  led  to  see  that. Paul's  persecuting  spirit, 
while-  in  an  unrenewed  state,  was  the  fruit  of  his  zeal  for  the  tra- 
ditions of  his  fathers  P  The  early  ecclesiastical  writers, — if  we 
may  judge  from  the  above  quotations  (which  might  be  greatly 
extended), — were  alive  to  the  danger  of  substituting  human  for 
divine  guidance  in  matters  of  faith.  And  that  their  convictions  of 
this  danger  arose  from  their  knowledge  of  the  perverting  and  cor- 
rupting influence  of  "  the  traditions  of  the  elders" — the  Jewish 
Cabala — in  "  making  void  the  law  of  God,"  by  "  teaching  for 
doctrines  the  commandments  of  men,"  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
We  must  therefore  insist  that,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is  designed 
to  be  understood  by  the  traditionists  of  our  day,  they  respectfully 
decline  the  honor  of  the  title,  "  venerable  luminaries  of  the  an- 
cient church"  ! 

Finally,  we  have  said  that  Scripture  is  infallible  ;  and  so,  of  ne- 
cessitv,  the  rule  by  which  to  interpret  it.  This,  on  Protestant 
principles^^that  of  interpreting  Scripture  by  Scripture — is  clear 
enough.  It,  however,  by  no  means  follows  that  they  by  whom  the 
rule  is  applied  are  themselves  infallible.  But  this  position  our  tra- 
ditionists— Koinanists,  positively,  and  others,  as  we  have  shown, 
virtually,  or  by  implication — deny.  They  affirm  the  infallibility 
of  the  interpreter  by  whom  the  rule  is  applied.  True,  they  are  not 
agreed  as  to  wJiom  the  right  of  interpretation  belongs,  Romanists 
asserting  it  in  behalf  of  "  holy  mother  Church,"  to  whose  interpret- 

(1)  Gal.  1  :  14. 
*  Epist.  14S— ad  Fortunatianum  Aug.  Op.  vol.  2,  p.  S02.     Paris,  1679. 


75 

ations  all  the  faithful  are  required,  under  penalty  of  the  heaviest 
anathemas,  to  yield  implicit  faith  and  obedience;  while  others, 
under  the  rule  of  Vincentius  Lirinensis,  demand  the  same  implicit 
faith  and  obedience  to  the  teachings  of  what  they  claim  to  consti- 
tute "  Catholic  Tradition."  On  the  other  hand,  Protestants  hold' 
all  such  claims  of  infallibility  in  behalf  of  the  interpreter^  as  con- 
stituting, essentially,  the  corner-stone  in  the  foundation— the  key- 
stone in  the  arch  of  the  entire  fabric  of  Antichristianism.  And 
they  oppose  to  it  the  right  of  private  interpretation.  On 
what  grounds,  will  appear  from  the  following : — 

1.  The  fact  that  God  has  given  to  us  a  law  or  standard  to  which 
we  can  appeal  in  cases  of  doubt,  involving,  as  it  does,  our  moral 
accountability  for  its  use  or  abuse,  implies  the  possession,  by  us, 
of  an  internal  jprincijjle  by  which  we  are  enabled  to  distinguish 
between  truth  and  error,  and  right  and  Avrong.  To  this  internal  prin- 
ciple, which  we  call  conscience,  and  the  law  or  standard  ordained 
to  guide  it  in  its  search  after  truth,  the' Scriptures  frequently  appeal. 
For  example,  our  Lord  asks,  "  Yea,  and  why,  even  of  yourselves, 
judge  ye  not  what  is  right  ?'"  So,  the  Apostle,  "  Examine  your- 
selves, whether  ye  be  in  the  faith ;  prove  your  own  selves.'" 
"Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good.'"  Now,  these 
passages  recognize  the  possession,  by  us,  of  a  judging  principle^  and 
the  provision  for  us  of  a  test  both  of  truth  and  of  character.  And 
that  both  the  test  and  the  duty  to  apply  it  to  the  purposes  here  set 
forth  are  of  universal  apjjlication,  is  evident  from  another  fact.  It 
has  for  its  support, 

2.  Common  consent.  This  apparent,  and  the  right  of  private 
interpretation  is  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  controversy.  In  proof, 
we  appeal  at  once  to  the  workings  of  the  argument  adduced  by 
Romanists  in  support  of  their  dogma  of  infallibility  of  "  holy 
mother  Church."  If  the  result  shows  a  clear  concession  on  her 
part,  of  the  above  j^rinciple,  the  fact  of  the  common  consent  is 
fully  sustained.  And,  mark,  the  Romish  Church  is  not  now  on  the 
bench,  but  at  the  bar — is  not  the  judge  deciding,  but  the  party 
pleading.  The  question, — the  infallibility  of  the  Romish  Church 
as  the  exclusive  interpreter  of  holy  writ,  etc.  This  high  claim  she 
sets  forth  in  the  following  Tridentine  decree  : — 

"  All  saving  truth  is  not  contained  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  but  partly  in  the 
Scripture  and  partly  in  umvrittea  traditions,  which,  whosoever  doth  not  receive, 
with  like  piety  and  reverence  as  he  doth  the  Scriptures,  is  accursed !  No 
one,  confiding  in  his  own  judgment,  shall  dare  to  wrest  the  sacred  Scriptures 
to  his  own  sense  of  them,  contrary  to  that  which  hath  been  held  and  is  still 
held  by  holii  mother  Church,  whose  right  it  is  to  judge  of  the  true  meaning  and 
interpretation  of  holy  writ,  or  contrary  to  the  Mnrirt^nous  consent  of  the  Fathers. 
If  any  disobey,  let  them  be  denounced  by  the  ordinaries,  and  punished  accord- 
ing to  law."* 

(1)  Luke  12  :  HT.     (2)  2  Cor.  13:5.     (3)  1  Thess.  5  :  21. 
*  Cone.  Trid.  Sess.  4. 


76 

Now,  bj  what  argument  is  it  pretended  to  support  this  claim  f 
Why,  that  it  is  a,  doctrine  of  divine  revelation,  founded  upon 
Christ's  23Tomise  to  his  apostles  and  their  successors,  that  He  would 
"  be  with  them  all  days,  even  unto  the  ages  of  ages."  The  question 
however  presents  itself — How  are  we  to  knoiv,  that  this  promise  re- 
lates to  the  endowment  of  "  holy  mother  Church"  with  the  perpe- 
tual gift  of  infallibility  as  the  interpreter  of  holy  writ  ?  To  affirm, 
as  docs  the  Eoman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Cincinnati,  that  in  virtue 
of  this  promise,  "  the  Church  is  as  certainly  assisted  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  teach  all  truth,  as  the  evangelists  and  other  writers  of 
the  hol}^  Scriptures  were  insinred  by  the  same  Divine  Spirit  to  write 
the  special  truths  which  they  were  commissioned  to  reveal  to  par- 
ticular churches  and  on  particular  occasions,"  is  assuminj  the  very 
thing  to  be  proved.  The  phrase,  "  I  am  with  you,"  in  Scripture, 
is  susceptible  of  the  four  following  meanings  :  "I  am  with  you," 
personally,  providentially,  graciously,  and  with  miraculous  power. 
Now,  it  is  clear  that  it  could  not  be  the  first ;  for  Christ  was  then 
withdraioinrj  his  personal  presence  from  his  Apostles.  Nor  the 
second  and  third ;  for  this  will  apply  equally  to  all  good  men  of 
every  age.  The  sense  of  the  fourth  has  its  illustration  in  the 
words  and  act  of  Peter  in  the  cure  of  the  cripple — "  Silver  and 
gold  have  I  none,  but  such  as  I  have  give  I  thee:  In  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth  rise  up  and  walk,"'  Nor  in  Peter  alone. 
For,  in  virtue  of  the  declaration — "  These  signs  shall  follow," '  etc., 
"the  twelve"  as  well  after  as  before  the  crucifixion  and  ascension, 
cast  out  devils  ;  spake  with  tongues  ;  took  up  serpents,  and  drank 
of  deadly  poisons,  unharmed ;  and  cured  the  sick  b}^  the  laying  on 
of  hands. '  Of  all  of  them  it  is  said,  that  "  they  Avent  forth,  and 
preached  everywhere,  the  Lord  working  with  them,  and  confirm- 
ing the  word  with  signs  following."  * 

Thus  much,  then,  as  the  result  of  private  judgment  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  above  promise — the  spirit  and  presence  of  Christ 
miracidoushj  "  working  with"  the  twelve,  in  attestation  of  the  di- 
vinity of  their  mission  as  sent  by  Him  !  But  what  evidence,  we 
ask,  does  this  furnish  in  support  of  the  claim  of  Eomish  infalli- 
bility ?  "  Can  the  popes  work  miracles  ?  Can  the  bishops  ? — Such 
a  miracle,  forsooth,  as  the  existence  Of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church 
in  the  western  empire,  after  the  rise  of  Mahometanism  in  the  east ! 
A  splendid  miracle,  truly  !  That  proves  as  much  for  Mahometan- 
ism and  Paganism,  as  for  the  Popes  of  Eome :  for  these  systems 
rose  upon  the  ruin,  and  also  withstood  the  shocks  of  other  sys- 
tems" ! 

The  question  of  the  dogma  of  Eomish  unbroken  succession  from 
Peter  avc  must  reserve  for  a  subsequent  page.  It  must  suffice  that 
we  now  observe,  that  the  fact  of  a  reference  by  Eomanists  to  Scrip- 
ture for  a  proof  of  said  claim,  is  a  tacit  acknowledgment,  on  her 
part,  of  the  right  of  private  j  udgment  as  the  rule  of  interpretation. 

(1)  Acts  3  :  6.     (2)  Mark  10  :  17.      (3)  lb.,  vv.  17,  19.     (4)  lb.,  v.  19. 


77 

Tlie  same  holds  true  of  lier  mode  of  admitting  proselytes  to  lier 
communion.  We  will  suppose  a  case  in  illustration.  A  Jew,  for 
example,  is  converted  to  Christianity.  We  will  suppose  him  to 
have  "heard  of  just  two  sects  of  Christians — the  Eoman  Catholic 
and  the  Protestant.  He  has  read  the  New  Testament.  He  wishes 
to  join  the  Church.  He  goes  to  the  Roman  Catholic  bishop,  and 
says,  '  I  see  two  churches,  sir  :  I  don't  know  which  to  join.  I  read 
that  there  is  but  one  true  Church.'  What  does  the  bishop  respond  ? 
'  Sir,  you  ought  to  join  our  church.'  The  Jew  asks,  '  your  reason, 
sir?  for  the  Protestant  says,  I  ought  to  join  his  church,'  The 
bishop  shows  him  fifteen  marks  of  the  true  Church.  He  says, 
'  Read  the  Bible,  and  see  if  these  marks  are  not  characteristic  of 
us;  and  then  judge  for  yourself '  He  finds  these  marks  involve 
the  principal  part  of  the  New  Testament.  He  reads,  however,  and 
joins  the  Church.  Has  he  not  decided  this  question  by  examining 
the  holy  Scriptures  ?     Has  he  not  interpreted yor  himself  f^* 

We,  however,  leave  Romish  traditionists  (and  their  respective 
allies)  to  reconcile  these  and  the  like  admitted  instances  of  the 
right  for  which  we  contend,  with  their  ex-cathedra  announcements, 
that  we  must  believe  what  "  the  Church"  (taking  Catholic  tradi- 
tion as  the  infallible  oracle  of  her  teachings)  believes.  Our  own 
conviction  is,,  that  there  is  no  risk,  at  least  with  the  unprejudiced 
mind,  in  opposing  the  logic  of  private  judgment  when  subject  to 
divine  guidance,  to  the  sophistry  of  "  the  vicious  circle," — we 
must  beheve  the  Scriptures  on  the  authority  of  the  Church,  then 
the  Church  on  the  authority  of  Scripture.  In  other  words, 
the  Pope  is  infallible,  for  the  Bible  asserts  it  ,•  and  the  Bible  is  in- 
spired, for  the  Pope  asserts  it :  a  mere  petitio  principii,  a  begging 
of  the  question,  as  gross  and  as  palpable  as  any  that  can  be  found 
in  the  category  of  sophisms  !  Take  the  following  in  illustration. 
His  Holiness,  for  example,  appears  in  court,  and  presents  before 
the  judge  and  jury  the  Bible  to  prove  his  claims;  but,  instead  of 
allovring  said  witness  to  speak  for  himself,  and  proving  that  he  is 
worthy  of  credit  (which  an  infidel  would  insist  upon  as  indispen- 
sable), he  merely  remarks,  '  This  witness,  gentlemen  of  the  jury, 
clearly  afl&rms  that  I  am  the  supreme  and  infallible  head  of  the 
Church  of  Christ  upon  earth.'  '  But  I  beg,'  says  the  opposite 
counsel,  '  to  cross-examine  the  witness,  in  order  to  ascertain — • 
First,  his  credibility ;  and,  second,  the  real  nature  of  his  testi- 
mony.' '  As  to  his  credibility,'  remarks  the  Pope,  '  his  oath  was 
not  entitled  to  the  least  credit,  till  I  expunged  what  I  deemed  spu- 
rious from  the  genuine  ;  nor  even  now  does  his  evidence  deserve 
the  least  credit,  only  when  it  is  in  my  favor.  '  That  is  very  singu- 
lar,' adds  the  counselor,  '  but  as  you  have  brought  him  into  court 
to  prove  your  vicarship  and  infallibility,  I  should  like  to  examine 
him,  to  see  what  he  sa3^s  on  these  points.'  '  You  may  if  you 
please,'  quoth  the  Pope,  'but  then  it  must  be  through  me.     For 

*  Roman  Catholic  Debate,  Cincin ,  O.,  1837. 


78 

you  must  know  that  it  is  impossible  to  understand  him  in  the  vul- 
gar tongue,  and  even  in  the  "  authentic  Latin," — he  speaks  so  in- 
distinctly, that  without  my  interpretation^  you  could  make  nothing 
of  his  evidence.  The  truth  is,  he  is  almost  dumb,  and  nobody  but 
myself  can  tell  infallibly  what  is  passing  in  his  mind.' 

*  And  pray,  how  did  you  get  this  exclusive  prerogative  of  tell- 
ing what  is  passing  in  his  mind  ?  What  proof  have  we  that  you 
possess  it  ?' 

'  What  proof  have  you  ?  You  have  no  proof,  but  I  have,  and 
that  is  enough.' 

Having  thus  exposed  the  fallacy  of  the  above  pretensions,  we 
pass  to  another,  namely :  That  of  an  alleged  advantage  by 
Romanists  over  all  the  Protestant  sects,  in  that  they  have  oio  au- 
thentic Bible.  This  claim,  on  the  Romish  hypothesis,  involves  the 
proposition,  '  The  Church  BEFORE  the  Bible.''  Hence,  no  Church, 
no  Bible  ! 

On  this  subject,  a  living  Roman  Catholic  prelate*  proposes  the 
following  question,  '■''which  was  prior  ^  the  Bible  or  the  Church?" 
To  which  he  responds,  "manifestly,  the  Church  was  the  o?c^er." 
His  argument  in  support  of  this  assertion  is  this :  "  Faith,"  says 
he,  comes  from  hearing,  or  preaching,  by  which  "  whole  nations 
were  converted  to  the  Savior,  before  the  different  books  composing 
the  present  Bible  were  determined  to  be  genuine  Scripture,"  etc. 
And  he  adds,  "  the  Church  was  therefore  prior  to  the  Bible  :  and 
if  the  Bible  had  never  been  written,  the  gospel  could  have  been 
preached  and  believed,  as  it  was  in  the  early  ages,  without  its  aid ;" 
and,  finally^  says  he,  "  if  there  is  any  thing  clearly  taught  in  the 
Scriptures,  it  is  the  authority  of  the  Church,  which,  without  aid 
from  the  Bible,  not  all  composed  when  the  first  apostles  preached, 
had  fully  established  her  authority,"  etc.  "  Hence,"  says  he,  "we 
believe  in  the  Church  first."  "The  Bible,  which  the  Church  pre- 
sents to  us,  obtained,  sanctions  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and 
confirms  our  faith," 

It  requires  but  a  partial  acquaintance  with  Romish  theology  on 
this  subject,  to  evidence  its  current  identity  with  the  sentiments 
advanced,  as  above,  in  its  support.  And,  viewed  as  a  whole, 
what  a  medley  of  theological  jargon!  Here  we  have  "the  au- 
thority" of  holy  mother  Church  "/w%  established"  as  "clearly 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,"  while  yet  those  very  Scriptures  are 
declared  to  have  been  "  not  all  composed  when  the  first  apostles 
preached"!  We  affirm,  that  "if  there  is  any  thing  clearly  taught 
in  the  Scriptures,"  it  is  the  fearfully  recorded  doom  of  this  scrip- 
turally  denominated  "mother  of  abominations,'"  as  she,  who,  to 
support  her  antichristian  usurpations,  has  blasphemously  dared 
both  to  take  from,  and  to  add  to,  its  inspired  contents.'^  It  Avere  no 
difficult  task  to  show,  as  well  from  the  internal  and  external  evi- 

(1)  Uev.  17  :  5.     (Q)  See  Rev.  -22  :  18,  19. 

*Bp.  Purcell,  Cin.  O.  Debate,  etc.,  pp.  262,  263. 


79 

dences  of  the  Scriptures  themselves,  as  from  the  concurrent  voices 
of  all  Christendom  (Romanists  excepted),  that  the  Apocalypse  of 
St.  John  completes^  as  the  Gospel  bj  St,  Matthew  commences^  the  in- 
spired canon  of  the  New  Testament.  This  is  not  the  place  to  fur- 
nish such  evidence  in  detail.  Suffice  it  now  to  state,  that  the 
above  evidences  place  the  date  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  between 
A.D.  41  and  44 ;  and  that  of  the  Apocalypse  just  before  the  acces- 
sion of  the  Emperor  Nerva,  A.D.  96.  The  intervening  three  Gos- 
pels, with  the  Acts,  and  the  twenty-three  Epistles  (the  authenticity 
and  divinity  of  which  are  sustained  by  similar  evidence  with  the 
above),  were,  at  difierent  dates,  penned  by  those  divinely  inspired 
amanuenses  of  the  Holy  Ghost  whom  Christ,  "when  he  ascended 
up  on  high,  set  in  the  Church  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints ;'" 
— and,  taken  in  connection  with  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  the  Apoc- 
alypse, and  the  Old  Testament  writings,  constitute  the  aggregate  of 
those  inspired  Scriptures  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  declared  to  be 
both  sufficient  and  supreme — ^^ profitable  for  reproof ^  for  correction^ 
and  for  instruction  in  righteousness ;  THAT  THE  MAN  OF  GoD  MAY 
BE    PERFECT,  THOROUGHLY  FURNISHED   UNTO  ALL   GOOD  WORKS.'" 

Now,  for  the  proof, 

That  the  words  of  Christ — ■"  out  of  thine  own  mouth  will  I 
judge  thee,  thou  wicked  servant,"-^  will  apply  to  Romanists  in  the 
sense  of  both  talcing  from  and  adding  to  these  inspired  Scriptures, 
we  refer  to  the  quotations  above.  First.  "  Faith,"  says  Bishop 
Pui'cell,  "  comes  from  hearing."  But  what,  we  ask,  gives  efficacy 
to  the  hearing  ear?  "  Hearing,"  adds  the  apostle,  "  comes  by  the 
word  of  Qodr  *  Here  is  the  relation  set  forth  between  ccatse  and 
effect  "The  word  of  God"  preached,  the  instrument ;  "  faith"  pro- 
duced, the  result.  "  The  word  of  God,"  the  basis  of  the  truths 
addressed  to  the  hearer;  and  hence,  ^'-  prior  ^''  in  the  order  of  time, 
to  "  faith"  in  the  truths  proclaimed.  True,  the  inspired  materiel 
for  the  erection  of  that  structure  of  Christianity  Avhich,  to  all 
future  ages,  was  to  furnish  a  finished  model  "  for  the  perfecting 
of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  and  for  the  edifying  of 
the  body  of  Christ,"^  was  distributed,  in  its  diversified  forms,"  in 
such  manner,  and  at  such  times,  and  to  such  persons,  as  "seemed 
good  to  the  Holy  Ghost,"  who  "  divided  to  every  man  severally 
as  he  would."'  In  other  words,  the  substratum  of  "  the  faith"  in 
doctrine,  church  order,  ordinances,  and  discipline,  "delivered  to 
the  saints"  by  the  inspired  apostles,  was  gradually  revealed.  But 
it  is  demonstrable  that  the  last  of  the  New  Testament  epistles — 
the  2d  of  Peter — was  written  as  early  as  A.D.  65,  and  hence, 
that  the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  and  the  twenty -three  Epistles,  were 
all  extant  in  the  Church  in  written  form,  in  the  short  space  of 
about  twenty  years !  These  inspired  writings,  we  repeat,  together 
with  the  Apocalypse,  penned^   as  we  have  said,  in  a.d.  96,  and 

(1)  Eph.  4  :  8-13.     (2)  2  Tim.  3  :  17.     (3)  Luke  19  :  22.    (4)  Rom.  10  :  17.    (S)  Eph.  4  :  12.     (8)  1 
Cor.  12  . 4,  6,  23.     (7)  Judo  3. 


80 

which  sets  fortli  the  predicted  fortunes  of  the  Church  to  the  close 
of  time,  completed  the  New  Testament  canon  before  the  close  of 
the  lirst  century.  It  follows,  that  "  the  foundation  of  the  apostles 
and  prophets,"  resting  upon  "  Christ  as  the  chief  corner-stone,'" 
^^  was  p'rior''  to  the  erecting  thereon  of  those  "  lively  stones,"  who, 
by  the  "  hearing"  of  "  faith"  wrought''  in  "  them  by  the  word  of 
God,"  were  "built  up  a  spiritual  house"— THE  CllUECH— "an 
holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God 
by  Jesus  Christ;'"'  otherwise,  we  have  the  anojnaly  of  a  building 
without  a  foundation!  and  such,  Bishop  Purcell  being  judge,  is 
the  Church  of  Eome ! !  else,  why  lop  off  the  latter  limb  of  the 
passage  which  he  pretends  to  quote  from  Paul?  Wherefore 
affirm,  that  "  if  the  Bible  had  never  been  written,  the  gospel 
could  have  been  preached  and  believed  without  its  aid  f^  and,  that 
the  hypothetical  form  of  presenting  this  matter  furnishes  no  escape 
from  the  tremendous  aiiathema  which  we  claim  to  apply  to  the 
advocates  of  the  above  theory  is  demonstrated  from  the  fact,  that 
though  the  Church  of  Home  claims  to  be  the  ordy  conservator  and 
interpreter  of  Scripture,  jQi  that  she  has  neither  an  authentic 
copy,  nor  an  authentic  commentary,  of  the  Bible !  and  in  present- 
ing our  proof,  as  a  shield  against  the  imputation  of  unfairness  in 
the  premises,  we  shall,  for  the  time  being,  yield  to  "  holy  mother 
Church"  her  assumed  prerogative  to  be  her  own  zvit?iess,  leaving 
her,  by  the  way,  to  dispose,  as  best  she  can,  of  the  declaration  of 
our  Lord — "If  a  man  bear  witness  of  himself,  his  witness  is  not 
true  :"^  for  the  reason,  as  we  suppose,  that,  being  deeply  interested  in 
the  points  in  controversy,  we  have  a  right  to  demand  evidence 
other  than  his  own  bare  assertion. 

First,  then,  The  Church  of  Rome  is  totally  destitute  of  an  authentic 
copy  of  the  Bible.  With  all  her  pretended  infallibility,  she  cannot 
produce  a  translation  of  any  sort,  in  any  living  language  on 
earth.  With  all  the  riches,  and  learning,  and  infallibility  of  the 
Romish  hierarchy,  she  owns  not  a  New  Testament,  authentic 
and  authorized,  either  by  Pope  or  Council,  or  by  the  Church 
diffusive  or  responsive. 

Proof  The  Council  of  Trent  declared  "  that  the  ancient  and 
common  edition  (of  the  Latin  Bible)  should  be  considered  the 
authentic  edition,  and  that  the  Bible  should  be  printed  as  correctly 
and  as  expeditiously  as  possible,  principally  according  to  the 
ancient  and  Vulgate  edition.  In  consequence  of  this,  it  was  pub- 
lished by  Sixtus  Quintus,  in  1590.  He,  himself,  watched  over  the 
work  with  admirable  attention  and  zeal ;  he  perused  every  sheet, 
both  before  it  was  committed  to  the  press,  and  after  it  was  printed 
off,  but  his  edition  scarcely  made  its  appearance,  before  it  was  dis- 
covered to  abound  with  errors"  !* 

These  are  the  words  of  an  eminent  and  highly  esteemed  advo- 

0)  Eph  2  :  20,     (2)  2  Cor.  5  :  5.     (3)  2  Pet.  2  :  5.     (4)  John  S  :  31. 
*  Horae  Biblics,  by  Charles  Butler,  Esq.,  of  Lincoln's  Inn.   Dublin,  1799,  p.  119. 


81 

cate  of  the  Romish  Church.  Sixtus  demanded  a  universal  recog- 
tion  of  his  Bible,  and  denounced  the  heaviest  anathemas  against 
all  who  would  charge  it  with  any  errors.  Yet  within  the  period  of 
thirty  years,  his  successor.  Pope  Clement  the  Vlllth,  not  having 
the  fear  of  these  curses  before  his  eyes,  brought  out  a  new  edition 
in  1593.  "  The  difference,"  says  Butler,  "  between  the  two  Papal 
editions  is  considerable;  Dr.  James,  in  his  celebrated  Bellum  Pa- 
pale,  reckons  2000  instances  in  which  they  dilll-r ;  Father  Henry 
de  Bukentop  a  Recollet,  made  a  similar  collection  ;"  while  "  Lu- 
cas Brugeusis  reckoned  -1000  places  in  which,  in  his  opinion,  the 
Bible  of  Clement  YIII.  wants  correction."  Cardinal  Bellarmine, 
who  had  a  principal  part  in  the  publication  of  the  edition,  praised 
his  industry,  and  wrote  to  him  that  those  concerned  in  the  work 
had  not  corrected  it  with  the  utmost  accuracy,  and  that  intentionally^ 
they  had  passed  over  many  mistakes." — {^^  Scias  velim  Bihlia  Vul- 
gata  nan  esse  a  nobis  accuratissime  castigata;  multa  enim  de  indus- 
trial jicstis  de  causis,  pertransivimnsJ^ — Bellarmine.)  Then,  too, 
Clement  hurled  the  same  anathemas  against  all  who  should  either 
refuse  to  accept,  or  who  should  dare  to  charge  error  against  his 
edition. 

"  Yet  this  is  the  Bible  which,  according  to  Mr.  Butler,  was  de- 
clared by  the  Council  of  Trent"  to  be  "  inerranf — "  where  the  dog- 
mas of  faith  or  morals  are  concerned,"  "In  this  decision,"  he 
adds,  "every  Eoman  Catholic  must  acquiesce,  as  he  receives  the 
Scriptures  from  the  Church,  under  her  authority,  and  with  her  in- 
terpretation."* 

A  Bible,  with  4,000  acknowledged  errors,  "inerrant"!  Nor 
this  only.  A  Bible,  placed  under  the  ban  of  an  anathema,  as  the 
rival  of  a  previously  existing  infallible  edition  ! 

To  decide  upon  the  merits  of  their  claims,  involves  the  question 
of  infallihility  of  their  respective  authors.  But  here  we  encounter 
another  difficulty.  For,  though  both  Sixtus  and  Clement  assume 
it,  the  latter  treats  the  pretense  of  his  predecessor  with  the  utmost 
contempt ;  while  another,  namely.  Pope  Adrian  YI.,  denied  that  the 
popes  were  infallible,  another  actually  rescinded  his  own  act,  as  in 
the  case  of  Pope  Martin  Y.,  who  at  one  time  coniirmed  the  de- 
cree of  the  Council  of  Constance,  which  set  a  general  council  above 
the  pope,  and  subseqhently  issued  a  decree  forbidding  all  appeals 
from  the  pope  to  a  general  council ;  while  others,  again,  as  in  the 
case  of  Clement  and  Sixtus,  rescinded  the  acts  of  their  predecessors 
— for  example.  Pope  Stephen  YI.  rescinded  the  decree  of  For- 
mosus ;  and  Sergius  III.  so  hated  Formosus  and  all  that  be  did  as 
pope,  that  he  obliged  all  the  priests  that  he  ordained  to  be  re-or- 
dained f     Truly, 

"  When  Greek  fought  Greek,  then  was  the  tug  of  war.'' 

Perhaps,  however,  a  general  council,  as  tJie  seat  of  infallibility, 

*  Butler's  Horae  Biblicae,  p.  12L 
6 


82 

may  decide  this  point.  Let  us  see.  That  of  Constance,  for  ex 
ample,  "  says  that  the  Church  in  old  times  allowed  the  laity  to  par- 
take of  both  kinds — the  bread  and  the  wine,  in  celebrating  the 
Eucharist."  The  Council  of  Trent  says,  the  laity  and  unofficiating 
priests  may  commune  in  one  hind  only.  In  the  time  of  Pope  Gela- 
sius,  it  Avas  pronounced  to  be  sacrilege  to  cZenythe  cup  to  the  laity; 
but  now  it  is  nnccmonical  to  allow  it.  Here  then  we  have  council 
against  council,  as  in  the  other  case  of  pope  against  pope. 

And  yet,  it  is  upon  such  authorities,  either  separately  or  eon- 
jointl)^ — (but  which  of  the  two,  it  has  never  3'et  been  decided), 
Protestants  are  called  upon  on  pain  of  eternal  perdition,  to  receive 
the  Latin  Vulgate  as  above,  as  "inerrant," — "authentic"!  "The 
fact  is,  hoAvever,  that  the  Vulgate  now  extant  never  had  the  sanc- 
tion of  a  general  council,  as  that  of  Trent  had  broken  up  before  it 
was  issued."  And  as  to  the  Douay  version,  it  was  made  from  the 
so-called  "inerrant"  and  "authentic  Latin"  copy  as  above;  the 
best  evidences  of  its  infallibility  being  those  of  the  4,000  blunders 
of  the  original  of  which  it  is  a  translation,  and  the  numerous  cor- 
rections of  its  inaccuracies  by  the  bishops  of  the  Romish  Church, 
at  different  times. 

Then,  regarding  the  question  as  to  what  constitutes  the  canoni- 
cal Books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  while  Eomanists  ad- 
mit all  that  Protestants  acknowledge  to  be  such,  they  insist  upon 
adding  thereto  as  a  part  of  the  inspired  writings,  productions  affirmed 
by  Protestants  to  be  totally  destitute  of  any  such  claim.  This, 
they  insist,  is  true  of  the  Apocrypha,  which  they  reject  as  being 
uninspired,  and  that  on  the  following  grounds — namely : 

"It  was  never  extant  in  Hebrew — never  formed  any  part  of  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures, not  being  reckoned  among  their  canonical  books  (of  whose  purity  and  int'^g- 
rity  they  were  remarkably  jealous^,  either  in  ancient  or  modern  times.  Neither 
is  it  found  in  the  Septuagint  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  made  by  Jews  at 
Alexandria  for  the  use  of  their  Hellenistic  brethren.  These  books,  moreover, 
were  not  referred  to  by  our  Lord  or  his  apostles.  They  are  not  mentioned  in 
the  sacred  canon  by  the  learned  Josephus  or  Philo,  who  flourished  in  the  first 
century.  During  the  first  three  centuries,  they  are  not  found  in  the  catalogue 
of  inspired  books,  drawn  up  ]jy  the  Greek  or  Latin  Fathers.  In  the  list  made 
by  the  council  of  Laodicea,  and  acknowledged  by  the  universal  Church  (a.d. 
364),  they  are  not  mentioned  :  and  even  St.  Jerome,  the  translator  of  the  Latin 
Vulgate,  expressly  omits  them  !  They  contain  fobles  and  contradictory  state- 
ments. They  recommend  immorality  ;  such  as  lying,  assassination,  suicide,  and 
magical  incantations.  And  never  were  they  acknowledged  by  any  general 
council  as  inspired,  till  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  the  XVIth  century,  foisted  them 
into  the  canon,  cursing,  according  to  custom,  all  that  would  refuse  to  receive 
them.  This  was  done  in  the  Fourth  Session,  there  being  present  at  the  time 
but  forty-eight  bishops  and  five  cardinals.  These  infallible  gentry  decreed  that 
the  books  of  Wisdom  and  Ecclesiasticus  were  written  by  Solomon,  whereas 
there  is  internal  evidence  most  decisive,  to  prove  that  thoy  were  not  written  till 
long  after  the  time  of  that  monarch.  Besides,  the  writers  made  no  preten.sione 
to  inspiration.  The  author  of  the  book  of  Ecclesiasticus  entreats  the  reader  to 
pardon  any  errors  into  which  he  may  have  fallen  :  and  the  writer  of  the  2d 
Maccabees  concludes  as  follows  :  ■  If  1  have  done  well,  and  as  is  fitting  the  story, 
it  is  that  which  I  desired ;  but  if  slenderly  and  meanly,  it  is  that  which  I  could 


83 

attain  unto.'    What  words  for  a  man  speaking  as  ht  was  '  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost !' "     But, 

2.  Second.  The  Churcli  of  Eome — lier  claims  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding — has  no  autliorized  commentary  on  the  Bible.  This, 
assuming  as  she  does,  the  prerogatives  of  an  infallible  interpreter 
of  Scripture,  she  holds  to  be  indispensable,  as  the  only  effectual 
safeguard  against  .heresy.  She,  therefore,  has  her  7iotes.  Their  au- 
thority and  value,  however,  we  leave  the  reader  to  infer  from  the 
following  testimony  of  one  of  her  most  eminent  and  distinguished 
prelates.  "  The  late  Rev.  Dr.  Doyle  was  asked  by  a  committee  of 
the  House  of  Lords, — 'You  consider  yourselves  pledged  to  all 
matters  contained  in  those  notes  ?'  '  No ;  not  by  any  means,' 
was  the  reply.  '  On  the  contrary,  there  were  notes  affixed,  I  be- 
lieve, to  the  Ehenish  Testament,  which  were  most  ohjectionahle. 
The  notes  carry,  in  our  edition  of  the  Bible,  no  lueight,  for  we  do 
not  know  the  loriters  of  many  of  them.''  " 

Clearly,  then,  the  Church  of  Rome  has  neither  an  authentic 
copy  of,  nor  an  authorized  commentary  on,  the  Bible.  A  Bible 
she  may  have,  or  rather  a  book  which  she  calls  such.  But  the 
Bible,  which  contains  the  "  all  Scripture"  which  was  originally 
"  given  by  inspiration  of  God"  at  the  hands  of  those  "  holy  men  of 
God,"  "the  apostles  and  prophets,"'  she  has  not!  Indeed,  the 
system  of  Romanism,  accommodating  itself  in  all  its  parts  and 
powers  to  unregenerate  humanity,  its  history  throughout  is  but  a 
demonstration  of  the  tendency  of  "  the  natural  man,"  under  the  guise 
of  Christianity,  to  depart  from  the  simplicity  of  primitive  gospel 
truth  and  order,  in  exact  proportion  as,  by  the  arrogant  claims, 
the  spiritual  despotism,  and  the  infinite  superstitions  of  the  jDapacy, 
it  has  receded  therefrom.  This  system,  in  subjugating  humanity  to 
its  control,  so  far  as  it  regards  the  original  inspired  Scriptures,  has 
all  along  proceeded  on  the  principle  of  substituting,  practically  at 
least,  the  absolute  for  the  hypothetical.  Such  a  procedure  was  at 
once  fundamental  to,  and  the  evidence  of,  the  grand  apostasy. 
The  dogma — "  the  Church  before  the  Bible,^^  as  it  involves  the 
right,  so  it  proceeds  on  the  principle,  of  furnishing  a  gospel,  "with- 
out its  aid"  !  And  this,  notwithstanding  the  fact,  that  all  the 
books  received  as  canonical  by  Protestants,  are  received  also  by 
Rome.  The  history  of  all  religious  delusions  shows  that  their  suc- 
cess is  dependent  on  and  is  in  proportion  to,  their  adherence  to  the 
true.  Take,  for  example,  the  Mormon  delusion,  and  we  must  con- 
fess that  it  transcends  our  philosophical  discrimination  to  discern, 
why  "  the  Bible  "  of  the  notorious  fanatic,  Joe  Smith,  has  not  as 
just  a  claim  t(^  our  credence,  as  the  so-called  "  authentic"  and  "  in- 
errant"  vulgate  of  Rome.  Both  claim  that  their  Bible  is  the  only 
true  word  of  God.  Both  profess  to  derive  their  authority  from  it. 
And  both  affirm  the  evidence  of  miracles  to  substantiate  their 

(1)  Compare  2  Tim.  3  :  16,  17  ;  2  Peter  1  :  18-21  ; 


84 

claims.  As  it  regards  the  first,  suffice  it  to  say,  tliat  both  Bibles 
abound  in  Scripture.  Of  the  second  and  third,  so  far  as  it  regards 
the  Mormon  prophet,  a  discussion  of  the  merits  of  his  claims  were 
a  waste  of  time  and  paper.  And,  of  the  pretended  popish  miracles, 
whether  of  mediaeval  or  of  modern  date,  all  that  we  have  to  say 
further  is,  that  they  "  are  wholly  destitute  of  the  support  of  credi- 
ble and  competent  testimony.  They  were  wrought  secretly,  or  in 
the  presence  of  those  only  who  had  already  em'braced  the  super- 
stition which  was  intended  to  be  supported  by  them  ;  or  when  the 
miracle  was  pronounced  complete,  the  effect  said  to  have  been 
wrought  was  imperfect  or  doubtful."* 

3.  One  other  point,  however,  calls  for  remark,  before  we  leave 
this  subject.  Komanists,  having  assumed,  that  "  whole  nations 
were  converted  to  tlie  Savior  before  the  different  books  composing 
the  present  Bible  were  determined  to  be  genuine  ScrijDture ;" 
allege  that  Protestants  are  dejyendent  upon  "  holy  mother  Church'''' 
for  their  collection^  jjyreservation^  etc.  The  argument  is  thus  stated 
— "  How,  on  Protestant  principles,"  it  is  demanded,  "  can  we  be 
sure  of  the  authenticity  of  a  single  book  of  the  Old  or  New  Tes- 
tament, seeing  we  have  no  voucher  for  the  truth,  but  the  testimony 
of  men  ?"  It  is  then  claimed  in  behalf  of  the  Church  of  Home, 
that  "  she  has  selected  the  genuine  books  of  Scripture,  and  stamped 
forgery  upon  such  as  are  spurious."  And,  it  is  demanded  in  an  air 
of  triumph — "  Had  she  not  done  this,  where  would  have  been  the 
Bible  ?"     In  reply,  we  remark — 

1.  Admitting  that  we,  as  Protestants,  are  indehted  to  her  wis- 
dom in  deciding  upon,  and  her  vigilance  in  preserving,  the  canoni- 
cal books  of  Scripture,  claiming,  as  she  does,  to  exercise  the  exclu- 
sive prerogative  of  an  infallible  umpire  in  all  matters  of  feith  and 
conscience,  Avhat  follows  ?  Why,  that  if  a  book  be  handed  to  me, 
and  I  read  and  believe  it,  that  my  faith  in  it  necessarily  rests  iqoon 
him  who  hands  it  to  me  .■'f     But, 

2.  Protestants,  we  affirm,  are  not  depeyident  on  the  Church  of 
Rome  for  an  authentic  version  of  the  Scriptures.  There  is  the 
most  indubitable  evidence  of  the  existence  of  complete  copies  of 
the  holy  Bible,  long  before  the  name  of  Pope,  or  the  Papal  su- 
premac}',  was  known  to  the  Church.  Such,  the  learned  Plorne,  in 
his  "  Introduction  to  the  critical  study  of  a  knowledge  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures" — (and  to  which,  for  want  of  space,  we  must  refer  the 
reader  for  further  information  on  this  subject) — is  true  of  the 
"  Codex  Alexandrimis,''^  or  Alexandrine  MS.,  in  four  volumes,  which 
tradition  ascribes  to  the  pen  of  Thecla,  a  little  after  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice,  A.D.  325,  and  now  preserved  in  the  British  Museum  ]\ 
the  "  CodexVaticanus,"  which  contests  the  palm  of  antiquity  with 
the  preceding,§  and  the  Syrian  Peschito,  or  literal,  (versio  simplex,) 
which  Michffilis  assigns  to  the  .early  part  of  the  second  century.| 

*  Dr.  Plumer.     "  The  Bible  True,"  p.  29.  f  Roman  Catholic  Debate, 

t  Home's  Introduction,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  67,  68.     §  Id.  lb.,  p.  74.     ||  Id.  lb.,  p.  189. 


;i 


85 


Other  examples  might  be  added.  Those  here  given,  however, 
are  sufficient  to  show  that  Protestants  are  no  more  dependent  on 
the  Romish  Church  for  their  Bible,  than  is  the  man  who  supplies 
himself  with  water  from  one  of  the  streams  of  the  Nile,  when 
there  are  six  others  equally  available  to  him.  We  will  only,  in 
conclusion,  add  by  the  way,  that  the  learned  Du  Pin,  of  standard 
Romish  authority,  admits  that,  before  the  Council  of  Laodicea, 
even  in  the  third  century,  "  the  Scriptures  were  read  as  tliey  now 
areT*  and,  besides  those  versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  both 
Hebrew  and  Greek,  which  were  extant  even  before  the  first  schism, 
A.u.  250,  from  the  writings  of  those  ancient  skeptics,  Celsus,  Por- 
phyry, Julian  and  others,  together  with  those  of  heretics  and  pa- 
gans, we  could  almost  compile  a  new  Testament,  containing  every 
thing  read,  not  only  since,  but  before  the  Council  of  Laodicea. 

What  now,  we  ask,  becomes  of  this  boasted  claim  ?  It  is  equally 
at  war  with  reason,  as  it  is  unsupported  by  fact.  Rather,  it  may 
in  truth  be  affirmed,  that,  had  it  not  been  for  the  o^ivals  of  "  Holy 
mother,"  who,  like  Argus,  have  ever  watched  the  sacred  text,  and 
guarded  it  from  the  hand  of  the  destroyer,  what  had  been  its  fate 
ere  this,  may  be  inferred  from  what  we  have  already  said  of  the 
interpolations  and  corruptions  of  those  editions  of  the  Primitive 
Fathers  and  other  works  which  have  fallen  into  her  hands. f 

(4.)  But,  the  Council  of  Trent  tells  us  that  we  must  interpret 
Scripture  according  to  the  "  wianimous  consent  of  the  fathers.'''''}^ 
What  a  boon  !  Pray,  who  are  the  fathers  ?  Who  can  give  their 
number,  or  their  names  ?  They  wrote  in  Greek  and  Latin  ;  their 
works,  as  we  have  shown,  consist  of  one  hundred  and  thirty-five 
ponderous  folios,  §  which  it  would  t3onsume  a  man's  life  to  read, 
even  in  part.  Now,  how  is  it  possible  to  ascertain  whether  they 
are  unanimous  on  any  single  passage  of  the  word  of  God  ?  What 
a  hopeless  task !  One  might  as  well  sit  down  to  interpret  the 
Egyptian  hieroglyphics.  The  fountain  of  life — the  Scriptures — -is 
streaming  before  our  eyes,  inviting  our  thirsty  spirits  to  drink. 
But  the  Council  of  Trent  tells  us  we  must  not  taste  it  till  we  get 
the  divining  cup  which  all  the  fathers  used — an  article  that  never 
existed !  AVhat  a  mockery,  to  talk  to  the  laity  about  the  unani- 
mous consent  of  the  fathers !  What  do  they  know  about  the 
fathers?     Just  as  much  as  they  do  about  the  priests  of  China.|| 

But,  in  addition,  even  admitting  the  possibility  not  only,  but 
the  practicability  of  such  a  task,  into  what  a  hahel  of  confusion  is 
the  reader  thrown  ?  We  venture  the  assertion,  that  a  very  partial 
trial  will  induce  every  unbiassed  mind  to  coincide  in  the  estimate 
which  Milton  formed  of  them : — "  Whatever  time,  or  the  heedless 
hand  of  blind  chance,  hath  drawn  down  from  of  old  to  the  pre- 

*  Du  Pin's  New  History  of  Ecclesiastical  Writers,  p.  35. 
t  See  page  75,  of  this  Essay.  {  Cone.  Trid.,  Sess.  4. 

§  See  p.  65.  H  See  Guide  from  the  Churcli  of  Rome,  etc.,  p.  328. 


:^ 


86 

sent,  in  lier  liuge  drag-net,  whctlier  fisli  or  sea-weed,  shells  or 
schrubs — unpicked,  unchoscn — these  are  the  fathers."  Indeed, 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  this  is  inevitable  ;  not  only  the 
lapse  of  time,  but  ignorance  and  carelessness,  or  (as  it  has  most 
generally  liappcned)  prejudice  and  passion,  incited  by  self-interest, 
conspire  to  jeopard  an  oral  statement,  whether  of  opinion,  or  of  fact. 
From  these,  and  other  causes,  the  original  import  of  such  communi- 
cations is  constantly  liable  to  corruption.  Of  this,  there  is  a  nota- 
ble instance  in  the  New  Testament.  We  refer  to  our  Lord's  reply 
to  Peter's  question  regarding  the  beloved  disciple.'  "  If  I  will 
that  he  tarry  till  I  come,  what  is  that  to  thec?"^ — words  which, 
intended  as  a  gentle  reproof  to  Peter's  indulgence  in  an  un- 
warrantable inquisitiveness  regarding  the  future  destiny  of  that 
disciple,  "  the  brethren"  construed  to  mean,  "  that  that  disciple 
should  not  die."^  St,  John  himself,  however,  in  penning  his  Gos- 
pel a  few  years  after,  (before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,)  alludes 
to  the  above  "saying"  of  the  brethren  as  an  evident  perversion 
of  Christ's  original  meaning.''  And,  as  to  the  early  ecclesiastical 
writings,  it  has  been  well  said,  that  "  every  thing  pertaining  to 
an  appeal  to  tradition  is  obscure,  uncertain,  disputable,  and  actu- 
ally disputed  to  such  a  degree,  that  even  those  who  are  not  able 
to  read  the  original  authors,  may  yet  be  perfectly  competent  to 
perceive  how  unstable  a  foundation  they  furnish.  One  father, 
as  we  have  shown,  says  one  thing,  another  refutes  it,  while  a 
third,  on  the  same  subject,  exj^resses  an  opinion  different  from 
either.  So  with  the  councils.  One  delivers  one  set  of  doctrines 
as  true,  while  another  adds  some,  and  rejects  others,  presenting 
a  new  creed  for  the  belief  and  guidance  of  men,  as  in  the  ease  of 
the  Council  of  Arminium,  where  Arianism  was  countenanced,  or 
of  the  second  Nicene  Council,  where  image  worship  was  estab- 
lished. Is  it,  then,  supposable,  that  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church 
would  commit  the  doctrines  of  his  Gospel,  fundamental  to  the 
salvation  of  men,  to  a  vehicle  so  easily  corrupted  as  Catholic  or 
ecclesiastical  tradition  ? 

Finally.  The  theory  which  makes  tradition  co-ordinate  with 
Scripture  as  a  standard  of  appeal,  dethrones  reason,  annihilates  the 
rights  of  private  judgment,  and  hence,  undermines  the  best  interests  of 
liberty  and  religion.  AYithout  controversy,  "  private  opinion  must 
be  allowed  on  all  points,  or  prohibited  on  all  points ;  and  if  i3ro- 
hibited,  it  must  be  by  force,  not  by  reason  :  for  that  would  be  an 
appeal  to  reason.  There  can  be  no  middle  course  between  the  un- 
limited freedom  of  conviction  and  the  dungeon  or  the  stake." 
Nor  does  this  consequence  result  from  the  Roraish  theory  of  tra- 
dition only.  If  followed  out  to  their  legitimate  extent,  the 
claims  of  an  authoritative  tradition,  whether  found  among 
the  Tridentine  Decrees  or  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  the 
Protestant   Episcopal   Church,   alike   involve  and  maintain   that 

(1)  John  -21  :  21.     (2)  lb.  v.  ii.     (3)  lb.  v.  23.     (4)  lb.  v.  -2. 


87 

principle  which,  beginning  in  coercion^  ends  in  j^crsecution.  Yes. 
\Ye  repeat  it.  As  ca  theory,  it  cannot  consistently  condescend 
to  any  appeal  to  human  conviction.  The  nature,  character  and 
powers  of  the  doctrinal  and  ecclesiastical  system  which  it  is 
employed  to  uphold — "  THE  Churcu,"  jure  divino,  and  an  un; 
interrupted  transmission  of  an  inherent  episcopo-sacerdotal  power 
of  self-perpetuation,  and  the  eflEicacious  administration  of  the 
sacraments — being  the  measure  of  its  alleged  authority.  Such 
a  system,  surely,  cannot  be  sustained  by  an  authority  less  than 
the  "  divinity  of  tradition"  !* 

Who,  then,  we  ask,  can  fail  to  see  that  this  unholy  alliance  of 
tradition  wiih  Scripture,  prostrates  human  reason  before  the  sacer- 
dotal power — destroys  mental  liberty,  and  subverts  the  right  of 
private  judgment — saps  the  very  foundation  of  all  intelligent  con- 
viction of  divine  truth — and,  availing  -  itself  of  the  universally 
prevalent  preponderance  among  men  of  the  religion  of  sense  over 
that  of  faith,  renders  the  mass  the  easy  dupes  to  a  sj'stem  of  cap- 
tivating ceremonials  !  Yes.  It  is  to  this  principle — "  the  power- 
ful bias  of  human  nature  towards  a  religion  of  infallible  pretensions, 
a  faith  consisting  in  a  mere  ascent  to  creeds,  a  worship  of  forms, 
and  a  service  of  external  observances,  of  times  and  seasons,  of 
"  days  and  months  and  years,'"— the  proneness  to  a  superstitious 
reliance  on  the  performance  of  the  ceremony  rather  than  on  the 
spiritual  influence — to  sanctimonious  devotion  rather  than  to  moral 
purity  ; — we  repeat,  it  is  to  this  principle  of  depraved  humanity. 
Drought  under  the  influence  of  the  natural  love  of  power  and  the 
disposition  to  arrogate  authority,  and,  in  turn,  reacted  upon  by  the 
institutions  thus  gradually  enforced ;  that  we  may  trace  the  suc- 
cess of  a  crafty  and  ambitious  priesthood  in  erecting  a  fabric  of 
authority  and  infallibility  out  of  the  spiritual  office  of  the  twelve 
fishermen  of  Galilee ;  and  in  supplanting  the  simple  regivien  of 
the  New  Testament  Church  by  the  external  blandishments  of  that 
"  infinite  superstition" — the  Papacy  ! 

Thank  heaven,  that  our  feet  were  in  time  diverted  from  that 
semi-Roxmsh.  avenue — Protestant  Episcopacy — through  which 
so  many,  both  of  the  clerg}"  and  laity  of  that  communion  are 
finding  their  way  back  to  that  antichristian  fold !  For  this  Ave 
are  indebted,  under  God,  to  the  deep  and  abiding  conviction,  in 
the  light  of  the  evidence  here  in  jDart  exhibited,  that  "  the  Bible, 
AND  the  Bible  aloxe,"  is  the  divinely  authorized  standard  of 
Christian  faith.  "  To  the  Jaw  and  to  the  testimony  '  if  we  sjKok 
not  according  to  tlds  word^  it  is  hecause  there  is  no  light  in  ics.''^ 

xVnd  the  Bible  is  its  own  interj)reter,  its  own  witness,  and  its 
own  Judge.     As  such  the  following  are  its  attributes,  viz. : 

1.  It  is  inspired.  "  Holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were 
moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost."' 

(1)  Gal.  4  :  10.     (1)  2  Pet.  1  -.21. 
♦  British  Critic.     No.  48.     Notice  of  Harcourt  on  the  Deluge. 


2.  It  is  authoritative.  "  The  word  tliat  I  speak  to  you,  shall 
judge  you  in  the  last  day."' 

3.  It  is  intelligible.  "  When  you  read,  you  may  understand 
my  knowledge  in  the  mystery  of  Christ.'" 

4.  It  is  moral.  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  is  pure,  rejoicing  the 
heart."" 

5.  It  \s,  j)erpetual.  "  The  word  of  the  Lord  endureth  for  ever. 
And  this  is  the  word  which  by  the  Gospel  is  preached  unto  you."* 

6.  It  is  catholic.  "  He  that  is  of  God,  heareth  God's  word." 
"  Preach  the  word,"     "  Preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature.'" 

7.  It  is  perfect.  "  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God, 
and  is  prolitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  and  for 
instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect, 
thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works.""     And, 

8.  It  isplaiyi,  and  easy  to  he  understood.  "  From  a  child  thou 
hast  known  the  holy  Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise 
unto  salvation.'" 

With  such  a  lamp  to  our  feet,  and  light  to  our  path  (and  we  in- 
tend, in  the  iirst  instance,  to  follow  wheresoever  it  leads,  exclu- 
sively and  implicitly),  let  us,  in  reliance  upon  the  Divine  aid, 
enter  upon  our  Scriptural  examination  of  the  Origin,  Nature, 
Orders  and  Powers  of  the  Christian  ministry,  as  set  forth  in  Part 
II.  of  this  treatise. 

(1)  John  12  :  48.  (2)  Eph.  1  :  9  ;  3  :  4.  (3)  Ps.  12  :  6  ;  19  :  8.  (4)  1  Pet.  1  :  25.  (5)  John  8  :  47  } 
1  Tim.  4:2;  Mark  IC  :  15.     (6)  3  Tim.  3  :  16.       (7)  2  Tim.  3  :  15. 


>.. 


PAKT  II. 

MINISTERIAL  PAEITY,  TESTED  BY  SCRIPTURE. 
CHAPTEE  I. 

SCEIPTURAL    VIEW    OF    THE    ORIGIN",    NATURE,     ORDERS,    AJSTD 
POWERS   OF  THE   CHRISTIAN   MINISTRY. 

SECTION   I. 

Introductory  Remarks — Plan  of  the  Argument  inductive — A  visible  Ministry  a  con- 
comitant of  the  visible  Church  state,  Patriarchal,  Jewish,  and  Christian — Opening 
History  of  the  New  Testament  exhibits  its  last  transition  state — Its  distinguishing 
characteristic,  Justification  by  Faith,  through  grace,  in  opposition  to  the  law  of 
Works — Process  of  ingathering — The  Church  invisible  and  visible — The  latter,  the 
basis  of  its  external  unity — A  baptized  body — Subjects,  infants  and  adults — The 
Lord's  Supper  the  bond  of  visible  union  and  communion. 

In  discussing  the  subjects  connected  with  Part  II.  of  the  follow- 
ing treatise,  our  inquiries  will  be  conducted  exclusively  upon  the 
ground  of  what  saith  "  Holy  Scripture." 

To  this  end,  that  we  may  abstract  our  mind — no  easy  task,  in- 
deed— from  the  influence  of  long-standing  associations  with,  and 
powerful  predilections  for,  an  ecclesiastical  constitution  which  we 
have  been  led,  on  mature  reflection,  to  believe  to  be  "  repugnant" 
to  "  Holy  Scripture,"  the  plan  of  our  argument  will  be,  induc- 
tive. 

We  premise,  then, — what  none  will  dispute, — that  a  visible 
ministry  is  a  concomitant  of  the  militant  Church  state  j  three 
forms  of  xohich  have  obtained  under  the  three  disjpensations^ 
Patriarchal^  Jewish^  and  Christian. 

On  opening  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament,  the  subject  of  pro- 
minent attraction  and  most  absorbing  interest,  is,  that  of  a  con- 
catenation of  events,  indicating  that  the  Church  is  in  a  transition 
STATE.  "  The  fullness  of  the  time"'  of  "  which  God  had  spoken  by 
the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets""  had  at  length  arrived,  when 
those  better  things"^  so  long  adumbrated  by  the  types  and  shadows 

(1)  Gal.  4  : 4.     (2)  Acts  3  :  21.      (3)  Heb  12  :  24. 


90 

of  the  old  or  Levitical  economy,  should  be  dispensed.  Paul's  em- 
blematic olive-tree  of  the  Xlth  of  Eomans,  illustrates  the  nature, 
fullness,  and  extent  of  God's  covenant  with  Abraham,  not  only ; 
but  also  the  mode — mysterious  indeed — by  which  the  Divine  faith- 
fulness in  regard  to  all  its  stipulations,  should  be  verified  to  "  all 
the  seed,'"  Gentile  as  well  as  Jewish.  The  national  rejection  of 
Christ  bv  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  results  in  their  excision, 
for  the  most  part,  from  the  good-olive-tree  as  its  natural  branches  ;* 
while,  ^^•ith  the  believing  remnant,  "  according  to  the  election  of 
grace, "3  new  scions  from  the  believing  Gentiles,  though  "  wild  by 
nature,"*  are  engrafted  thereon.^ 

It  is  also  to  be  particularly  observed,  that  in  virtue  of  the  same 
perpetual  tenure  of  the  covenant  Abrahamic,  the  church  is  now 
transferred  from  under  the  Judaic  or  Sinaitic  covenant  or  law  of 
works,  and  placed  under  the  covenant  of  grace.  That  dis})ensa- 
tion,  though,  as  "  the  letter,"  it  dealt  out  nothing  but  condemna- 
tion and  death,  was  nevertheless  "  glorious.'"  From  the  first  mo- 
ment of  the  first  transgression,  God  had  ordained  that  no  law 
could  be  given  yielding  a  righteousness  which  could  give  life.'' 
But,  man's  sin  could  not  annul  God's  law.  As  a  subject  of  moral 
obligation,  he  was  still  responsible.  Hence  the  divine  enactment, 
"  cursed  is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  written  in 
the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them."*  In  this,  then,  consisted  the 
glory  of  that  economy.  The  law  stood  forth  as  the  stern  and  un- 
compromising vindicator  of  the  honor,  truth,  holiness  and  justice 
of  God,  against  the  unreasonableness  of  man's  infraction  of  it. 
But  just  as  after  the  promise  to  Abraham  of  a  son,  human  device 
is  allowed  to  exert  itself  for  the  fulfillment,  and  Hagar  with  her 
unhappy  offspring — the  occasion  of  domestic  discord — -is  the  issue : 
so  at  Sinai.  JSTo  sooner  does  God  proceed  to  accomplish  his  uncon- 
ditional covenant  with  Abraham,  than  Israel  embraces  the  testing 
proposition  of  a  conditional  covenant.  "7/^  ye  will  obey  nny 
voice  indeed,^  and  heej?  my  covenant^  then  ye  shall  he  a  peculiar 
treasure  unto  me  above  all  people^''''*  is  the  language  of  God  to 
them' :  just  parallel  to  our  Lord's  intimation  to  the  self-righteous 
ruler,  "  Thou  knowest  the  commandments  :'""  and  it  is  followed  by 
their  self-complacent  replv,  "  all  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken^  we 
win  dor 

Creaturehood,  however,  under  every  preceding  dispensation, 
had  totally  failed  to  render  obedience"  to  God's  law,  and  hence 
lay  under  his  just  Avrath  and  curse.  And,  for  the  simple  reason, 
that  "  the  law  is  not  of  FArrn  :"'^  for,  "  whatsoever  is  not  of  faith, 
is  sin.""  Wherefore?  It  is  because  of  its  Cainite  infidel  rejec- 
tion of  all  belief  in  and  reliance  upon,  that  piacular  or  expiatory 
sacrifice  and  atonement  for  sin,  predicted  to  be  made  in  the  divine 

(1>  Kom.  4  :  16.  (-2)  Rom.  11  :  11,  21.  (3)  lb  ,  5.  (4)  lb.,  24.  (5)  lb.  (6)  2  Cor.  3  :  7-9 
(7)  Rom.  5:17.  (9)Gal.  3:10.  (9)  Exod.  19  : 5.  (10)  Luke  18  :  20.  (11)  Rom.  5  :  19.  (12)  Gal.  3  :  12 
(13)  Rom    14:28. 


^*#; 


91 


person  incarnate  of  the  pre-ordained  Son  of  God,  as  the  Slain 
Lamb,'  "  set  up  from  everlasting  or  even  the  earth  was,"^  to  that 
end.  In  opposition,  therefore,  to  the  theory  of  creaturehood  jus- 
tification by  the  law  of  works,  is  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of 

JUSTIFICATION   BY   FAITH, 

through  the  alone  merits  and  righteousness  of  our  blessed  Lord  and 
Savior  Jesus  Christ.  It  reveals  that,  having  assumed  our  nature  in 
mysterious  union  with  the  divine.  He  (Christ)  was  "made  sin  for 
"Qs  who  knew  no  sin  ;  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteousness  of 
God  in  hira."^  That  He  "  was  made  a  curse  for  us:"^  and  that,  in 
order  to  render  complete  our  salvation  in,  through,  and  by  Plim, 
having  fulfilled  the  law'  in  all  its  parts,  moral,  ceremonial,  and 
mediatorial.  He  is  "the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every 
one  that  believeth."*  "As  by  the  deeds  of  the  law  no  flesh  living 
can  be  justified  in  God's  sight,'"  "  the  law"  fulfills  the  ofiice  of  a 
"  schoolmaster  to  bring  us  to  Christ."*  It  points  us  to  Christ  as 
our  Substitute,  by  whom,  "  all  that  helieve  are  justified  from  all 
tilings  from  which  Ave  could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses.'" 
"  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemnation  to  them  that  are  "  thus" 
in  Christ  Jesus,  Avho  walk  not  after  the  flesh  but  after  the  spirit." '" 
And,  in  this  consisteth  "  the  glory  that  excelleth,"  of  the  economy 
under  which  we  live,  compared  with  that  which,  at  the  opening  of 
tliis  dispensation,  was  "  done  away."'^ 

The  process  for  the  ingathering,  from  among  all  nations,  both  of 
Jews  and  Gentiles  within  the  encircling  arms  of  the  Church  under 
this  new  aspect  of  her  development,  was  gradual.  These,  as  "  the 
first  fruits  unto  God""  hj  faitJi  in  Christ,'''  constituted  that  mystical 
body,  the  Church,'^  of  which  he  is  the  divinely  constituted  Head;" 
We  repeat,  "  the  Church — universal  or  Catholic,  as  being  gath- 
ered out  of  all  nations :  mystical  or  invisible,  (whether  in  heaven 
or  on  earth,)*  as  known  only  to  God. 

(1)  Rev.  5  :  6.  Ci)  Proy.  8  :  23.  (^)  2  Cor.  5  :  21.  (4)  Gol  3:13.  (5)  Gal.  3  :  13.  (6)  Rom.  10  :  4. 
(7)  lb.  3:20.  (9)  Gal.  3:  24.  (9)  Acts  13  :  39.  (10)  Rom  8:1.  (11)  2  Cor.  3  :  10.  (12)  lb.  5:  7. 
(13)  Rev.  14  :  4.     (14)  Rom.  13  :  22.     (1-5)  Col.  1  :  24.     (16)  F.ph.  1  :  22  ;  lb.  4:15;  Col.  1  :  18. 

*  That  these  last  named  attributes  are  as  applicable  to  the  true  Church  militant,  as  to 
those  of  her  members  who,  havinsj  "fallen  asleep  in  Christ'"  are  joined  to  the  Church 
triumphant,  is  evident,  first,  from  those  words  of  our  Lord,  "  they  are  not  of  the  world, 
even  as  I  am  not  of  the  world." — "  The  glory  which  thou  gavest  me  I  have  given  them."'- 
These  words  had  direct  reference  to  Christ's  true  Church  and  people  on  earth.  But  such 
surely  can  only  be  said  to  be  known  to  him.  Their  "life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God."* 
They  have  "  a  name  which  no  man  knowcth^  save  they  to  whom  it  is  given.'"  "  The 
secret  of  the  Lord  is  with  them  that  fear  him,  and  he  will  show  them  his  covenant,"-^ 
through  "the  Spirit."  which  is  given  to  them  to  "bear  witness  with  theirs,  that  they 
are  the  children  of  God  "  ' 

On  the  other  hand,  wherever  the  Church  or  kingdom  of  God  is  spoken  of  as  a  visible 
body  ayncmg;  men,  it  is  always  associated  with  the  presence  therein  of  the  false  and  the 
self-deceived.  Within  her  pale  is  found  the  intermingling  of  individuals  of  opposite 
character,  the  prevalence  of  error,  and  the  admixture  of  ignorance,  imperfection  and  sin, 
with  better  and  holier  elements.  "All  are  not  Israel  who  are  of  Israel."'  For  an 
illustration  of  the  nature  and  character  of  the  church  visible^  we  refer  the  reader  to  the 
parables  of  the  wheat  and  tares,  of  the  drag-net,  and  of  the  ten  virgins.* 

(1)  1  Cor.  1.5  :  20,  23.  (2)  John  17.  (3)  Col.  3  :  3.  (4)  Rev.  2  :  17.  (5)  Ps.  25  :  14.  (6)  Rom. 
8  :  16.     (7)  Rom.  9  :  6.     (8)  Matt.  13  :  24-30  ;  ib.  47-50  ;  ib.  2-3  :  1-13. 


92 

It  follows,  that  the  first  condition  of  clmrcli  unity  is,  fellowship 
with  God,  through  Christ,  hy  faith.  But,  where  this  great  princi- 
ple exists,  cementing,  as  it  does,  the  affections  of  each  toward 
those  of  all ;  it  results,  from  the  very  nature  of  our  Catholic  Chris- 
tianity as  a  social  system,  that  it  be  provided  with  an  external  bond 
of  concord  of  man  with  man,  not  onlj^,  but  of  unity  of  action  in  the 
dissemination  of  its  blessings  to  others. 

Hence,  the  origin  of  the  external  unity  of  the  Church.  It  has 
for  its  fpundation,  the  co-membership  of  each  of  the  mystical 
members  of  the  church  with  Christ  himself,  as  "  members  of  his 
body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones."'  It  has  for  its  marks  of  visi- 
bility, visible  ordinances,  and  a  visible  ministry. 

The  visible  church  is  a  hajytized  hody.  From  the  first,  her  adult 
members  were  the  subjects  of  a  double  baptism — first,  by  the 
Soly  Ghost  /  and  second,  by  water :  this  latter  baptism  being  a 
"  figure"  or  symbol  of  the  former,  as  representing  their  spiritual 
regeneration  through  faith."  Not  to  enter  into  a  lengthened  argu- 
ment on  this  point,  it  will  suffice  to  refer  to  a  single  instance  in 
illustration.  We  allude  to  Peter's  recognition  of  the  distinction 
between  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Sjnrit  and  that  of  water  haj^tism^ 
as  set  forth  in  the  command  given  by  him  for  the  baptism  by  water, 
of  those  on  whom  the  Holy  Ghost  had  been  previously  poured  out. 
"  Can  any  man  forbid  ?^afer,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized 
which  HAVE  RECEIVED  thc  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  ?"^ 

As  to  the  right  of  the  infant  children  of  helievers  to  church  mem- 
bership hy  hajytism^  it  is  necessary  in  this  place  to  remark,  that  the 
commission  of  Jesus  to  his  apostles  is  no  less  hroad  in  its  scope, 
nor  less  2>ositive^  express^  or  definite  in  its  directions  regarding 
those  for  whose  everlasting  salvation  it  was  designed,  than  those 
embraced  within  the  purview  of  the  covenant  Abrahamic.  This 
commission  runs  thus  :  "Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
haptizing  them^''  etc.,  "teaching  them  to  observe  all  things,"  etc.* 
Now,  of  this  commission  we  remark,  that  it  undeniably  contains 
two  parts,  namely : 

I.  The  commission  itself.  MaBr]Tevoare  -navra  ra  eOvq  :  Disci- 
ple all  nations  ;  make  them  disciples  or  Christians. 

II.  The  onode  of  its  execution.  BaTrriCovref ,  kol  ^idaoKovrec : 
which  literally  translated  is,  baptizing-teaching. 

But  the  first, — the  command  to  disciple  all  nations,  is  in  the  im- 
perative mood :  and  hence,  the  whole  commission  is  included  in 
DisoiPLiNG ;  while  the  second,  the  command  to  baptize  and  teach, 
both  words  being  participles,  indicates  the  mode  or  order  of  fulfill- 
ing the  commission.  But,  baptizing  is  put  before  teaching,  show- 
ing thereby  that  a  person  may  be  haptized  before  he  be  taught. 

(!)  Eph.  5  :  30.     (2)  Acta  10  :  47.     (3)  Matt.  28  :  19,  20. 


98 

This,  however,  was  not  true  of  adults,  the  apostles  first  having 
taught  ancWA(?;i  baptized  them,  Ergo^  to  carry  out .  the  order  of 
the  commission  according  to  the  EXPKESS  COMMAND  of 
Christ,  it  could  only  have  been  done  by  fi'i^st  baptizing  and  then 
teaching,  which  can  only  be  true  of  infants  and  cliilclren. 

Evidently,  then,  though,  in  discii^ling  adults  by  preaching, 
and  admitting  them  into  the  church  by  baptism,  the  apostles  fully 
acted  up  to  the  spirit  of  their  commission — that  order  being  indis- 
pensable in  regard  both  to  Jews  and  Gentiles  in  the  first  planting 
of  Christianity  ;  yet  it  is  clear  that,  from  the  order  of  the  commis- 
sion, ^i6aoKovrz^,  teaching^  being  put  after  Ba-nrii^ovreq,  hajptizing^ 
the  duty  especially  enjoined  was  that  of  teaching  children  already 
brought  into  the  church  by  baptism.  Any  further  positive  injunc- 
tion regarding  them  had  been  superfluous.  It  was  perfectly  analo- 
gous to  the  long  standing  membership  with  the  Jewish  Church  of 
infants  by  circimicision.  To  prove  the  above  exposition  fallacious, 
e\ddence  the  most  positive  must  be  adduced  to  show  that,  in  the 
instances  of  the  household  baptisms  of  Cornelius,  of  the  Jailer,  of 
Lydia,  of  Stephanus,  of  Crispus  and  Gaius,  of  Onesiphorus,  of 
Aristobulus  and  Narcissus,  and  of  the  many  believers  who  formed 
the  Church  of  Corinth,  together  with  the  families  of  the  bishop, 
the  deacon,  and  the  young  women  in  the  Epistle  of  Timothy,  there 
neitlier  loere  nor  could  he  yoking  children  in  any  one  of  them  ! 

Baptism,  therefore,  though  in  the  case  of  adults,  it  is  followed  by  a 
declaration  of  faith  or  "the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards 
God ;"  '  3-et  in  its  relation  to  children  as  "  the  seed"  of  the  Church, 
was,  in  its  office,  'prosi:)ective.  It  pointed  the  eye  of  faith  (of  those 
who,  thus  baptized,  were, /?-o?n  childhood^  to  be  taught  to  know  the 
holy  Scriptures)  to  Christ,  in  all  the  pardoning  and  sanctifying 
efficacy  of  his  atoning  blood.*     But — 

The  visible  Church  is  also  a  united  body.  For  this  Christ  pray- 
ed. "  Holy  Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name  those  whom 
thou  hast  given  me,  that  they  may  be  one  as  we  are." — "Neither 
pray  I  for  these  alone  (that  is,  Jewish  believers),  but  for  those  (Gen- 
tiles) also  that  shall  believe  on  me  through  their  word  :  that  they 
all  ma}'  be  one,  as  thou,  Father,  art  in  me  and  I  in  thee  :  that  they 
also  may  be  one  in  us. — I  in  them,  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be 
made  perfect  nsr  one."  *  For  this  the  apostles  labored.  Whether 
they  preached,  baptized,  or  wrought  miracles,  their  work  concen- 
trated in  a  "  perfecting  of  the  saints  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,"  ^  and 
of  union  with  each  other,  by  preserving  "  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  bond  of  peace,"*  through  communion  with  Christ  the  Head,  of 
which, 

(1)1  Peter  3  :  21.  (2)  John  17  :  23.  (3)  Eph.  4  :  12,  13.  (4)  F.ph.  4  :  3. 
♦The  writer  had  intended  to  pass  over  any  alhision  to  the  suhject  of  these  remarks. 
Upon  reflection,  however,  he  considered  them  as  necessary  to  an  exhihit  of  what,  in  ac- 
cordance with  his  views,  constituted  one  of  the  elements  in  the  re-constniction  of  the 
Church  under  Christ  and  his  apostles.  He  c!aim.«,  therefore,  the  charitable  indulgence 
of  those  who  conscientiously  differ  with  him  in  this  particular. 


94 

Tlic  LonVs  Supper  is,  pre-emiucntlj,  if  not  exclusively,  the  sign, 
seal,  badge,  or  bond.  We  object  to  that  view  of  water  baptism 
which  would  make  the  Lord's  Supper  subsidiary  thereto,  as  though 
baptism  constituted  the  hoiul  of  union  to  the  Church :  than  which, 
no  principle  can  do  greater  violence  to  the  declared  design  of  the 
institution  of  this  latter  ordinance,  or  tend  more  seriously  to  mar 
the  "  communion  of  saints"  with  Christ  the  Head.  Take,  in  evi- 
dence, the  words  of  institution, — "  The  Lord  Jesus,  the  same  night 
in  which  he  was  betrayed,  took  bread" — and  also  "  the  cujd" — 
saying,  "  this  do,  as  oft  as  ye  eat  and  drink,  in  remembrance  of 
me ;  For  as  oft  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show 
the  Lord's  death  till  become,"  as  a  commemorative  act:  which, 
with  Paul,  constituted  the  basis  of  the  communion  of  the  members 
of  the  mystical  body  of  the  redeemed  witli  Christ  the  Head,  and 
of  visible  fellowship  with  each  other.  "  The  cup  of  blessing  which 
we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ?  The 
bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  body  of 
Christ  ?  For  we  being  many,  are  one  bread  and  one  body  ;  for  we 
are  all  partakers  of  that  one  bread."  '  Yea,  and  that  not  after  a 
natural  or  corporeal,  but  after  an  ineffably  spiritual  manner:  the 
material  elements  directing  the  eye  of  faith  to  Him  who  is  "  the 
true  Bread,"  who  alone  can  give  "  life  to  the  world  ;"  ^  even  as  the 
typico-symbolic  "  rock  in  Horeb"  pointed  to  the  "  Kock,"  Christ, 
of  which  the  Israelites  spiritually  drank.  ^  Hence,  our  Lord's  de- 
claration at  the  last  Supper  with  his  apostles, — "  I  will  not  drink 
henceforth  of  this  fruit  of  the  vine  until  that  day  when  I  drink  it 
new  with  you  in  my  Father's  kingdom  :"  *  words,  be  it  observed, 
pointing  directly  to  his  approaching  personal  withdrawal  from  the 
Church. "  It  follows,  that  Christ's  promised  perpetual  presence 
with  the  Church,  could  be  realized  to  her  in  no  other  way  than  by 
his  spiritually  abiding  with  her  through  the  agency  of  the  Divine 
Paraclete — the  Holy  Ghost, — who,  he  declared,  should  "  take  of 
the  things  that  are  His,  and  reveal  them  unto  her"  °  by  His  ineffably 
perjDetual  presence  forever.'  And  it  is,  we  observe  in  this  connection, 
particularly  worthy  of  note,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  in  His  office-Avork 
of  Sanctifier  of  the  faithful,  sustains  to  them  the  two-fold  relation 
of  a  seal,  and  the  Sealer.  Paul,  having  spoken  of  our  adoption  of 
God  as  his  predestinated  children  by  Jesus  Christ,  adds,  "after 
that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit"  :  and  he  ad- 
monishes us — "  Grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit,  lohereby  ye  are  sealed 
unto  the  day  of  redemption."  * 

The  Lord's  Supper,  therefore,  as  it  is  the  medium  of  the  commu- 
nion of  believers  with  each  other  and  with  Christ  the  Head, 
through  the  Spirit ;  so  it  is  the  sealing  or  cementing  of  the  differ- 
ent parts  with  the  Head  in  an  union  spiritual,  ineffable,  divine : 
and,  we  add,  not  the  less  real,  because  not  corporeal.     Christ  is 

(1)  1  Cor.  10  :  16,  17.     (2)  John  6  :  32,  33.     (8)  1  Cor.  10 :  4.     (4)  Matt.  26  :  29.     (6)  John  14  :  1-4  : 
16  :  1-7.     (6)  John  16  :  14.      (7)  John  14  :  16.     (8)  Eph.  1  :  5,  13  ;  4  :  30. 


95 

present  therein  :  present,  as  when  the  apostle  says,  "  what,  know 
ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwelleth  in  you  ?"  '  Present,  as  when  Jesus  said,  "  where  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst 
of  them."  ^ 

We  have  thus  presented,  in  brief,  the  migin  of  the  exter- 
nal unity  of  the  Church.  It  has  for  its  foundation,  as  we 
have  said,  the  co-membership  of  each  of  her  mystical  members 
with  Christ  himself,  by  faith.  It  is  only  those,  therefore,  who,  in 
commemoration  of  his  passion  through  the  visible  symbols  ordain- 
ed to  that  end,  rightly  "  discern  the  Lord's  body,"  '  that  are  truly 
united  to  him  as  members  "of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his 
bones."*  Nor  can  the  pious  mind  be  too  deeply  impressed  with 
the  conviction,  that  the  essence  of  that  "  unity  of  the  Spirit"  which 
binds  together  in  holy  concord  "the  household  of  faith,"  lies  not 
so  much  in  external  membership  with  this  church  or  that,  as  in 
union  with  God  himself  through  Christ.  "  Circumcision  availeth 
nothing,  nor  uncircumcision  :  but  a  new  creature.^''  ^  Indeed,  we 
know  of  no  Scripture  which  makes  external  conformity  a  condi- 
tion of  spiritual  unity.  That  unity  may  exist  under  great  external 
dissimilarity ;  it  may  fail  under  the  most  perfect  show  of  outward 
agreement.  It  has  been  well  said,  therefore,  that  it  is  amongst  the 
worst  corruptions  of  Christianity,  to  confound  our  individual  union 
mth  Christ  and  the  perfect  symmetry  of  the  Church  in  him,  with 
our  external  union  with  the  Churchy  its  sacraments,  etc.  To  this 
circumstance — involving,  as  it  does,  the  subordinating  of  the  reli- 
gion of  faith  to  that  of  sense* — may  be  traced  the  rise,  "  hy  little 
and  little,^^  and  the  progress  and  final  consummation,  of  that  most 
fearfully  stupendous  system  of  spiritual  despotism,  the  Papal  Su- 

PEKSTiriON  ! 


SECTIOI^  n. 

The  Christian  Ministry — Differs  from  the  Jewish  in  its  form,  its  spirit,  and  its  end — 
Diverted  froai  its  original  divinely-appointed  intent — Paul's  description  of — Scrip- 
tural account  of  the  Origin,  Nature,  Orders,  and  Powers  or  Functions  of,  as  in- 
stituted by  Christ  and  his  Apostles — Chillingworth,  the  Homilies,  and  Bishop  Taylor 
quoted. 

We  proceed  now  to  add  to  these  details  of  the  reconstruction  of 
the  Church  under  this  dispensation,  yet  another :  that  relating  to 

THE  CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY. 

The  original  simplicity  of  the  priestly  attributes  of  the  patri- 

(1)  1  Cor.  3  :  IG.     (2)  Matt.  18  :  20.     (3)  1  Cor.  11  :  29.     (4)  Eph.  5  :  30.     (a)  Gul.  6  :  16. 
*  It  is  the  exclusive  design  of  Parts  II.  and  III.  of  this  Treatise,  to  exhibit  in  detail 
the  points  of  diflererice  of  these  respective  systems,  with  illustrations  of  their  practical 
development. 


96 

archal  functions,  post-diluvian  and  ante-diluvian,  being  finally 
merged  into  that  of  the  more  imposing  triple  priesthood  of  Aaron  ; 
and  [)oth,  having  fulfilled  the  purposes  of  their  appointment,  van- 
ishing away : '  they  were  succeeded  by  a  ministry  totally  diverse 
therefrom  in  its  foryn,  in  its  spirit,  and  in  its  end.  Vie  allude  to 
THE  Christian  Ministry.  Its  Origin,  Nature,  Orders,  and  Pow- 
ers, will  constitute  the  basis  of  our  inquiries ;  a  subject,  it  is  scarcely 
necessary  to  add,  fraught  with  the  deepest  interest  to  the  Church 
and  people  of  God,  of  this  day.  Indeed,  since  the  age  almost  im- 
mediately succeeding  that  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  no  subject 
has  been  more  widely  discussed ;  certainly  none  which  has  more 
frequently  engaged  Christendom  in  fiercer  conflict.  Diverted  from 
its  original  and  divinely-appointed  intent  of  conveying  to  man,  by 
the  word''  and  spirit  of  God,^  the  blessings  of  "  the  Great  Salva- 
tion ;"  the  arm  of  a  purely  evangelical  resistance  has  proved  pow- 
erless before  those  terrific  engines — proscription,  confiscation,  im- 
prisonments, martyrdoms,  etc.  employed  by  the  hordes  of  ecclesi- 
astical aspirants  after  "  the  jye-eminence,^^  in  the  Church,  of  early 
and  mediaeval  times,  and  continued — though,  thank  Heaven,  as 
yet,  imder  more  modified  forms — by  those  of  the  present  day. 

To  understand  the  merits  of  this  conflict,  and  the  responsibility 
respectively  of  its  agents,  it  must  be  traced  back  to  its  source.  This 
is  indispensable  to  a  determination  as  to  whether,  in  the  primitive 
constitution  of  the  ministry,  it  was  of  so  equivocal  a  character  as  to 
engender  that  spirit  of  unholy  rivalship  which,  though  at  first  "like 
a  grain  of  mustard-seed  cast  into  the  earth,"  yet,  having  sprung 
up,  has  long  since  attained  and  still  retains,  a  giant  growth.  Upon 
its  outstretched  branches  repose,  at  this  day,  the  Eomish  "birds  of 
the  air"  of  every  size  and  tinge  ! 

Of  this  ministry,  synoptically,  Paul  furnishes  us  with  the  follow- 
ing account.  Christ,  "  when  he  ascended  up  on  high,"  having 
"  led  captivity  captive,  gave  gifts  unto  men."- — "  And  he  gave 
some,  apostles ;  and  some,  prophets ;  and  some,  evangelists ;  and 
some,  pastors  and  teachers;" — after  that,  miracles,  then  gifts  of 
healings,  helps,  governments,  diversity  of  tongues  :"  which  gifts 
"God  set  in  the  Church"  "for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the 
work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  till" 
the  newly-organized  Church  should  have  "  all  come  to  the  unity  of 
tlie  faith  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God  unto  a  perfect  man, 
unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ.''^* 

Hence  we  see  that,  as^^in  the  heavenly,  so  in'  the  militant,  king- 
dom of  Christ.  There  are  diversities  of  operations  and  of  admin- 
istrations (b}^  the  appointment  and  under  the  guidance  of  the  same 
God,  the  same  Lord,  the  same  Spirit)  in  the  visible,  as  there  are 
differences  of  orders  and  of  rank  in  the  invisible.  Church  ;  *  with 
this  difference,  however,  that,  in  regard  to  the  heavenly  hierarchy, 

(1)  Heb.  8  :  13.     (2)  James  \  :  21.     (3)  John  6  :  63  ;  2  Cor.  3  :  6.     (4)  Epli.  4  :  8-11  ;  1  Cor.  12  :  28, 
Eph.  4  :  12,  13.     (5)  Compare  1  Cor.  15  :  41,  etc.,  with  2  Cor.  12  :  4-11. 


97 

the  Orders  are  fixed  and  permanent :  whereas  in  tlie  militant 
church  state,  to  the  intent  that  "  no  flesh  should  glory  in  His 
presence," '  God  has  ordained  that  "  the  ministry  of  reconcilia- 
tion"" should  be  committed  to  "earthen  vessels,"  plainly  inti- 
mating thereb}'-,  that  they  were,  in  themselves,  comparatively 
valueless  not  only,  but  that,  as  such,  in  order  "  that  the  excellency 
of  the  power"  displayed  in  man's  salvation  miglit  be  clearly  seen 
to  "be  of  God,  and  not  of  them,''^^  that  they  might  either  be 
broken,  or  removed,  or  changed,  as  He  might  tliink  lit. 

With  these  preliminaries,  proceed  we  now  without  further  de- 
lay, to  an  examination,  inductively,  and  in  the  liglit  of  Scripture 
alone, 

OF  THE  ORIGIN,  NATUBE,  ORDERS    AND   POWERS   OR   FUNCTIONS   OF   THE 
CHRISTIAN  MINISTRY,  AS  INSTITUTED  BY  CHRIST  AND  HIS  APOSTLES. 

In  the  light  of  Scripture  alone.  We  are  happy  to  record  the 
unqualified  concurrence,  in  tlie  adoption  of  "  the  Bible  and  the 
Bible  alone"  as  our  standard  of  appeal  in  those  inquiries,  first,  of 
the  great  Chillingworth.  "  The  religion  of  Protestants,"  says  he^ 
"  is  the  Bible.  The  Bible,  I  say,  the  Bible  onhj,  is  the  religion  of 
Protestants !  Whatsoever  else  they  may  believe  besides  it,  and 
the  plain,  indubitable  consequences  of  it,  well  may  they  hold  it  as 
a  matter  of  opinion  ;  but,  as  a  matter  of  faith  and  religion,  neither 
can  they  with  coherence  to  their  OAvn  grounds  believe  it  them- 
selves, nor  require  the  belief  of  it  of  others,  without  most  high  and 
most  schismatical  presumption."*  To  the  same  effect  speaks  the 
Book  of  Homilies  of  the  Church  of  England.  "  Our  Savior  Christ 
teacheth  not,  or  needeth  not  any  testimony  of  men  ;  and  that  which 
is  once  confirmed  by  the  certainty  of  his  eternal  truth,  hath  no  more 
need  of  the  confirmation  of  marLS  doctrine  and  writings,  than  the 
bright  sun  at  noon-tide  hath  need  of  the  light  of  a  little  candle,  to 
put  away  darkness  and  to  increase  the  light."f  And,  finally,  says 
that  great  champion  of  Episcopacy,  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  "What- 
soever was  the  regiment  of  the  Church  in  the  apostle's  times,  that 
must  be  perpetuall,  (not  so  as  to  have  all  that  was  personall,  and 
temporary,  etc.),  for  that  and  that  only  is  of  Divine  Institution 
which  Christ  committed  to  the  apostles ;  and  if  the  Church  be  not 
now  governed  as  then^  we  can  show  no  divine  authority  for  our 
government,  which  we  must  contend  to  doe,  and  doe  it  too,  or  be 
called  USURPERS." 

(1)  1  Cor.  1  :  29.     (2)  2  Cor.  6  :  19.     (3)  2  Cor.  4  : 7. 
*  Chillingworth's  Works,  Chap.  VII,  sec.  56. 
t  Homily  against  Perils  of  Idolatry. 


i?-.^.''  98 


SECTION  in. 

^     The  Origin  of  the  New  Testament  ministry — Instances  of  ministerial  appointments — 

f,  1st:  By  Christ  personally — 2d:  By  the  Holy  Ghost — 3d:  By  the  Apostles — 4th: 

By  the  Apostles  with  others — 5th  :  By  others  than  the  Apostles — 6th :  Of  those 

respecting  whose  appointments  no  allusion  is  made,  either  as  to  the  source  or  mode 

of — 7th  :  Those  appointed  by  special  Providence — Total  number,  sixty. 

First,  then,  of  the  Origin  of  the  New  Testament  ministry. 

The  plan  of  our  inquiries  will  involve  the  necessity  of  present- 
ing before  the  reader,  seriatim^  all  the  instances  of  ministerial  ap- 
pointments therein  recorded.  Tlicse,  on  inspection,  will  bo  found 
to  have  originated  either  from  Christ  personally,  or  from  the  Holy 
Ghost,  or  from  the  Apostles  united  with  others,  or  from  others 
besides  the  Apostles,  or  by  special  Providence.  Besides  these, 
others  are  mentioned  as  holding  office  in  the  Church,  without  any 
allusion  either  to  the  source  of  their  appointment,  or  the  mode  of 
their  designation  thereto. 

I.  Of  those  appointed  by  Christ  personally.     These  were, 

1.  The  twelve  Apostles.  "  And  he  ordained  twelve,  that  they 
should  be  with  him,  and  that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach, 
and  to  have  power  to  heal  sicknesses,  and  to  cast  out  devils,"  viz. : 

(1.)  Simon  Peter  ;  (2.)  James  and  (3.)  John^i  sons  of  Zehedee  / 
(4.)  Andrew ;  (5.)  Philip ;  (6.^  Bartholoraew  ;  (7.)  Matthew  ; 
(8.)  Thomas  ;  (9.)  James,  son  of  Alpheus  ;  (10.)  Thaddeus  ;  (11.) 
Simoyi.,  the  Canaanite  /  (12.)  Judas  Iscariot.^ 

The  object  of  their  vocation  was,  that,  as  eye-witnesses  of  Christ's 
resurrection,'  etc,  they  might  receive  those  qualifications^  requisite 
for  muster  huilders,'^  in  laying  the  foundation  and  erecting  thereon 
the  edifice  of  Primitive  Christianity.' 

2.  The  Seventy  Disciples.  "  After  these  things  the  Lord  ap- 
pointed other  seventy  also,  and  sent  them  two  and  two  before  his 
face,"  etc." 

3.  The  man  who  cast  out  devils  in  Christ's  name.' 

4.  The  man  who  was  sent  to  preach  the  kingdom  of  God.* 

5.  Pauli  the  great  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles.^  Though,  com- 
pared with  the  other  vVpostles,  he  was  "  born  out  of  due  time," 
yet  he  was  called,  "  not  of  men,  neither  by  man^  but  by  Jesus 
"Christ  {whom  he  had  seen),  and  God  the  Father,"  asr-  a  chosen 
vessel  unto  Christ,  to  bear  his  name  among  the  Gentiles  and  kings, 
and  the  children  of  Israel."'" 


(1)  Mark  3  :  14-16  ;  Matt.  10  :  1.  (2)  Acts  1  :  3,  8  ;  21,  22.  (3)  Mark  3  :  14,  15  ;  Matt.  10:1; 
Mark  6  :  7-13  ;  Luke  9:1-6;  John  4:1,2;  Maik  16  :  12  ;  17.  18  ;  .John  16  :  12  ;  21  :  15-17  ;  Matt. 
16  :  15-19  ;  John  21  :  23.  (4)  1  Cor.  3  :  10.  (r,)  Kph.  2  :  20  ;  4  :  11-13.  (6)  Luke  10  :  1,  2.  (7)  Mark 
9  :  38,  40  ;  l.uke  9  :  49,  50.  (8)  Luke  9  :  59,  60.  (9)  Gal.  1  :  1,  12  ;  1  Cor.  15  :  8.  (10)  Acts  9  :  18  ; 
Gal.  I  :  1,  12;  Horn.  U  :  13. 


n.  Of  those  appointed  directly  by  the  Holy  Ghost.    These 


were 


6.  Barnabas  and  Savl.  "  And  as  they  ministered  to  the  Lord 
and  fasted,  the  Holy  Ghost  said,  separate  me  Barnabas  and  Saul 
for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them."  Called,  airoaToXoi, 
Apostles.' 

III.  Of  those  appointed  by  the  Apostles.    These  were, 

7.  The  Seven  Deacons.  Being  chosen  by  the  multitude  of  the 
disciples,  "  they  set  them  before  the  Apostles.  And  when  they 
had  prayed,  they  laid  their  hands  on  them.'" 

8.  Those  also  denominated  "  The  Elders^''  npeafivTegoi,  whom 
Paul  and  Barnabas  "  ordained  in  every  church  throughout  Lystra, 
Iconium,  and  Antioch,"  etc.     And, 

9.  The  hoelve prophetic  disciples  at  Ephesus,  by  Paul.' 

10.  Timothy,  selected  by  Paul  as  his  companion,  under  the  title 
of  EvayyeXiOTov,  Thangehsty* 

11.  Philip,  the  Deacon,  so-called.' 

IV.  The  appointment  by  the  Apostles,  with  others, 

12.  Of  Matthias,  to  fill  the  vacancy  occasioned  by  the  apostasy 
of  Judas.* 

V.  Of  those  appointed  by  others,  without  the  Apostles.  These 
were, 

13.  Barnabas,  sent  forth  by  the  Church  in  Jerusalem  to 
Antioch.' 

14.  Saul  and  Barnabas,  by  the  prophets  and  teachers  in  the 
Church  at  Antioch." 

15.  Timothy.,  by  the  Presbytery  of  Ephesus.' 

It  will  aid  us  hereafter  by  preserving,  in  this  place,  a  distinction 
in  things  which  differ,  as  connected  with  the  origin  and  design  of 
the  ministry  of  the  Church  as  recorded  in  the  New  Testament. 
We  shall  therefore  reverse  the  order  of  the  last  two  articles  now 
under  consideration,  by  presenting  a  summary 

VI.  Of  those  mentioned  as  holding  office  in  the  New  Testament 
Church,  without  any  allusion  either  to  the  source  of  their  appoint- 
ments, or  of  the  mode  of  their  designation  thereto.     These  were, 

16.  Those   certain   prophets   and    teachers   in   the   Church   at 

(1)  Acts  13  :  1,  3  ;  14  :  J4:  (2)  Acts  1  :  l-«.  (3)  Acts  14  :  23  ;  v.  21  ;  19  : 1-6  ;  vv.  5,  7.  (4)  Acts 
16  :  1.  3  ;  2  Tim.  4  :  5.  (5)  Acts  21  :  8.  (6)  Acts  1  :  ld-i6.  (7)  Acts  11  :  22.  (8)  AcU  13  :  1-3 
f9)  1  Tim.  4  :  14. 


100 

Antiocli.  (1.)  Barnabas^  or  Joses ;  (2.)  Simeon^  called  Niger ; 
(3.)  Zucius  of  Gyrene;  (4.)  Manaen ;  (5)  Judas ;  (6)  Silas; 
(7.)  Jo7m  Mark.' 

17.  Titus,  whom  Paul  calls  his  partner  and  fellow-helper,'  also 
his  companion. 

18.  Epapltjroditus.  Paul's  companion  and  fellow-soldier.  Called 
also  the  oTroCTTo/lof,  apostle,  or  messenger  of  the  Church.' 

19.  "A  certain  Jew,  named  Apollos,  born  at  Alexandria,  an 
eloquent  man,  and  mighty  in  the  Scriptures."  This  man,  though 
instructed  in  the  way  of  the  Lord,  and  fervent  in  the  spirit,  and 
teaching  diligently  the  things  of  the  Lord,"  nevertheless,  "  knew 
only  of  the  baptism  of  John."  "  Aquilla  and  his  wife  Priscilla," 
however,  having  heard  him  "speak  boldly  in  the  synagogue,  took 
him  unto  them,  and  expounded  unto  him  the  way  of  God  more 
perfectly ;"  after  which,  bearing  a  letter  from  "  the  brethren"  to 
"  the  disciples  at  Achaia,  he  helped  them  much  which  had  be- 
lieved through  grace ;  for  he  mightily  convinced  the  Jews,  and 
that  publicly,  showing  by  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  Christ."* 

20.  PJiehe,  who  is  called  by  Paul  ^^  AiaKovov^^^  a  servant,  or  dea- 
coness of  the  Church  in  Cenchrea.s 

21.  Priscilla  and  Aquila,  styled  by  the  apostle  Paul  his  "help- 
ers in  Christ  Jesus."* 

22.  Marcus,  sister's  son  to  Barnabas — first,  the  companion  of 
Barnabas  and  Saul,  then  of  Barnabas  alone,  to  Cyprus,  and  sub- 
sequently again  of  Paul.' 

23.  Aristarchus  of  Macedonia,  Paul's  companion  in  travel,  and 
fellow-laborer."    (Col.  4  :  10.) 

24.  Sojmter  or  Sosipater  (Rom.  16  :  21),  of  Berea.  lie  accompa- 
nied Paul  into  Asia.' 

25.  Aristarchus  of  Thessalonica.  He  accompanied  Paul  into 
Asia.'" 

26.  /Secwwi^w^  of  Thessalonica.    He  accompanied  Paul  into  Asia." 

27.  Gaius  of  Derbe.     He  accompanied  Paul  into  Asia.'' 

28.  Tychicus  of  Asia.  (Col.  4 :  7.)  He  accompanied  Paul  into 
Asia."' 

29.  Tropliimus  of  Asia.     He  accompanied  Paul  into  Asia.** 

30.  Artemas.  Either  he  or  Tychicus  was  sent  to  Crete  by 
Paul  to  relieve  Titus,  whom  he  wanted  to  join  him  at  Nicopolis." 

31.  Epenctus,  Paul's  well-beloved.'" 

32.  Andronicus  and  Junia.  Paul's  "  fellow-prisoners,"  and 
"  of  note  among  the  apostles."" 

33.  Urhane.     Paul's  "  helper  in  Christ."" 

34.  Apelles.     "  Approved  in  Christ,"" 

(1)  Acts  4  :  36  ;  13  :  1  ;  and  V.  5  ;  12  :  25  ;  15  :  30-32.  (2)  2  Cor.  8  :  23.  (3)  Phjlipp.  2  :  25.  (4)  Act* 
18  :  24-28 ;  Titus  3  :  13.  (5)  Rom.  16  :  1.  (6)  Rom.  16  :  3  ;  2  Tim.  4  :  19.  (7)  Col.  4  :  10  ;  Acts 
12  :  12-25  ;  13  :  13  ;  15  :  37-39  ;  2  Tim.  4  :11.  Philem.  v.  24.  (8)  Acts  19  :  29  ;  27  :  2.  Philem.  v. 
24.  (9)  Acts  20  :  4.  (10)  lb.  (11)  lb.  (12)  lb.  (13)  lb.  See  also  2  Tim.  4:12;  and  Titus  3  :  12. 
(14)  Acts  20  :  4 ;  2  Tim.  4  ;  20.  (15)  Titus  3  :  18.  (16)  Rom.  16  :  5.  (17)  lb.,  v.  7.  (18)  lb.,  ▼.  9. 
(19)  Rom.  16  :  10. 


101 

35,  Aristobulus,  36,  Herodian,  and  37,  Narcissus.    "  Wliich  are 

in  the  Lord.'" 

38,  AmpUas,  and  39,  Stachys.     "  Beloved  in  the  Lord.'" 

40,  Tryphena^  41,  Tryphosa^  and  42,  Per  sis.     ^'■Yfholdbcyred  in 

the  Lord.'" 

43.  Rufus.     "  Chosen  in  the  Lord."* 

44.  Onesiphorus. 

45.  Erastus. 

46.  Eubidus. 

47.  Pudens. 

48.  Linus. 

49.  Claudia." 

50.  Epaphras.  "A  faithful  minister  of  Christ,"  and  Paul's  "fel- 
low-prisoner."' 

51.  Onesimus.  He  accompanied  Tychicus  to  Colosse.''  (For 
Tjchicus,  see  28.) 

52.  Jesus.,  called  Justus,  Paul's  "  fellow-worker  unto  the  king- 
dom of  God."" 

53.  Lucas.     Paul's  "  fellow-laborer.'" 

54.  Demas.  Paul's  "fellow-laborer."'"  The  unfaithful.  Paul 
writes  of  him,  "  Demas  hath  forsaken  me,  having  loved  this  pre- 
sent world."" 

55.  Crescens}^ 

56.  ArcMppus.  A  charge  was  given  him  to  "  take  heed  to  the 
ministry  which  he  had  received  of  th^Lord,  to  fulfill  it."'3 

57.  The  angels  or  stars  of  the  seven  Asiatic  Churches.'* 

58.  Diotrephes.^"    He  "loved  to  have  the  pre-eminence." 
The  following  names : — Asyncritus^  PJdegon,  Hermas,  Patro- 

has^  Hermes^  Philologus^  Nereus.,  Olympas  and  Dem£trius^^  with 
those  of  J/ar?/,  Julia^  the  sister  of  Nereus^''  etc.,  may  have  been — 
the  former  Deacons,  and  the  latter  the  Dorcases  or  Deaconesses  of 
the  churches.  But,  no  mark  of  official  designation  being  attached 
to  their  names,  we  classify  them  with  such  as  the  "  well-beloved" 
Gaius,  "  the  elect  lady,"  etc.,  mentioned  by  John,"  as  having  occu- 
pied in  the  churches  the  position  of  general  "  fellow-helpers  to  the 
truth,""  in  the  extension  of  their  charity,  hospitality,  and  timely 
assistance  rendered  to  their  suffering  ministerial  "  brethren  and 
strangers.""  And,  of  this  class  also,  may  have  been  several  whose 
names  appear  in  the  preceding  catalogue  as  officers  in  the  Church. 
For  example,  31,  Epenetus ;  34,  Apelles  ;  35,  Aristobulus ;  36, 
Herodion ;  37,  Narcissus;  38,  Amylias ;  39,  Stachys^  eic  A 
few  doubtful  cases,  however,  in  regard  either  to  the  one  or  the 
other  of  the  above-named  classes,  can  in  no  way  affect  our  general 
argument  in  the  premises.     We  add  to  the  above, 

(1)  lb.,  V.  10.  11.  (2)  lb.,  V.  8,  9.  (3)  lb.,  v.  12.  (4)  lb.,  v.  13.  (5)  2  Tim.  4  :  19-21.  (6)  Colos. 
1:7;4:12.  Philem  v.  23.  (7)  Col.  4  : 7-9.  (8)  Col.  4  :  11.  (9;  lb.,  v.  14.  (10)  lb.,  v.  14.  Philem. 
T.  24.  (11)  •.?  Tim.  4  :  10.  (12)  lb.,  v.  10.  (13)  Colos.  4  :  17.  (14)  Rev  2  :  3.  (15)  3  John,  vv.  9,  10. 
(16)  Rom.  16  :  14,  15  ;  3  John,  12.  (17)  Rom.  16  :  6,  15.  (18)  2  John,  v.  1  ;  3  John,  v.  1.  (19)  lb.,  v. 
8.    (20)  See  3  John,  1  :  8. 


102 

Vll. — Those  appointments  in   the  Church   made  by  sI'ecial 
Providence.     These  were, 

59.  The  '■^ elders'^  or  "  hisTiaps'^ — -rrpealSvreQol  vel  emoKonoi ;'  and, 

60.  The  "  deacons^^ —  ^Iukovoi,  in  the  churches  of  Ephesus  and 
Crete." 


Such,  then,  were  the  ministerial  "  gifts"  appointed  under  the 
direction  and  control  of  "the  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit,"  in  the 
primitive  or  New  Testament  Church. 


SECTION  rv. 

The  nature  of  their  powers  or  "gifts." — This  inferred,  1st:  From  their  moral  qualities  of 
heart  and  of  life — 2d  :  Must  have  a  Divine  call — 3d  :  Intellectual  qualifications — 4th: 
Must  be  of  sound  doctrine — 5th  :  Excluded  self-adulation,  jealousy,  and  a  love  of  "  the 
pre-eminence" — 6th  :  The  duty  enjoined,  to  forsake  such  as  are  unholy  in  life,  or 
who  "  handle  the  word  of  God  deceitfully." 

Pass  we  now,  therefore,  from  this  account  of  their  origin,  to  our 
next  step  of  induction  in  these  inquiries.     This  relates  to, 

11. — The  NATUEE  of  these  "gifts."  This  may  be  gathered  from 
the  following  particulars.     The  first  regards, — 

1.  The  moral  qualities  of  heart  and  of  life  of  those  who  pos- 
sessed them.  To  the  apostles,  Christ  said,  "  Ye  have  not  chosen 
me,  but  I  have  chosen  you,  and  ordained  you,  that  ye  should  go 
and  bring  forth  fruit'" — "  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit"^ — and  that,  first, 
personally — "love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  meekness,  gentle- 
ness," etc'  Second,  ministerially — by  turning  sinners  "  from 
darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God,""  and 
by  the  building  up  of  the  believer  in  the  most  holy  faith ;'  and, 
for  this  work,  they  were  eminently  qualified,  by  imparting  to  them 
the  .Divine  affiatus  from  Christ  personally,  both  at  the  time  of,  and 
subsequently  to,  their  first  call ;'  and  also,  and  especiallj'-,  by  the 
descent  upon  them  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.' 
So  of  the  elders  or  hishops.  It  was  required  that  they  be  "  blame- 
less, as  the  steward  of  God" — "sober,  just,  holy,  temperate,"  etc., 
that  they  might  be  able  both  to  exhort  and  convince  the  gainsay- 
ers."'°  The  same  of  deacons^  of  whom  it  was  required  "  that  they 
be  men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  wisdom."" 

(1)  1  Tim.  3  :  1,  2.  3,  7  ;  Titus  1  :  4-9.  (i)  1  Tim.  3  :  8-13.  (3)  John  15  :  16.  (1)  GjI.  5  :  22.  (5)  lb., 
92,  23.  (6)  Acts  26  :  18.  (7)  .Jude  20.  (8)  John  3  :  34,  35  j  20  :  22.  (9)  Acts  2.  (10)  Titus  1:6-9; 
1  Tim.  3:1-7.     (11)  Acts  6  : 3. 


103 

2.  To  these  spiritual  qTialilications,  we  add  the  necessity  of  a  divine 
call ;  and  that,  either  direct,  as  in  the  case  of  tlie  twelve  apostles, 
the  scvent}^,  Paul,  etc. :  or,  by  the  authority  of  the  Church,  under 
the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  in  the  case  of  Saul  and  Barna- 
bas, the  seven  deacons,  etc.  "  He  that  entereth  in  by  the  door,  is 
the  shepherd  of  the  sheep."  All  who  "  climb  up  some  other  way, 
are  thieves  and  robbers.'"  Of  such  God  says,  "  I  sent  them  not^ 
neither  have  I  commanded  them,  neither  s2Kdce  unto  them." ''  Hence 
the  direction — applicable  alike  to  every  age  of  the  Church — "Pray 
ye  the  Lord  of  the  harvest,  that  He  would  send  laborers  into  his 
harvest."  ^     We  add, 

3.  Intellectual  qualifications.  "  A  hishop  must  be  apt  to  teach" 
— "  a  scribe  well  instructed" — "  a  workman  that  needeth  not  to  be 
ashamed,  rightly  dividing  the  word  of  truth:"  "  not  a  novice,  lest, 
being  lifted  up  with  pride,  he  fall  into  the  condemnation  of  the 
devil."* 

4.  Sound  doctnne,  is  another  pre-requisite  of  this  ministry. 
Christ  warned  his  apostles  to  "  beware  of  the  leaven,  or  doctrine, 
of  the  Pharisees  and  Sadducees."'  Paul  charged  Timothy  thus: 
*'  Take  heed  to  thyself  and  to  the  doctnne,  and  continue  in  them,"' 
"  that  the  name  of  God  and  his  doctrine  be  not  blasphemed."' 
"  But  speak  thou  the  things  which  become  sound  doctrine,"  "  that 
ye  be  not  carried  away  by  every  wind  of  doctrine,  and  cunning 
craftiness  of  men,  whereby  they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive."  * 

5.  This  ministry  of  reconciliation,"  though  constituted,  as  above, 
of  "  diversities  of  gifts  ;"  "  that  there  should  be  no  schism  in  the 
body,"'  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church  early  warned  those  included 
therein  against  indulgence  in  a  spirit  of  self-adulation,  of  jealousy, 
or  of  a  love  of  the  pke-emin^nce.  Says  he  to  them,  "  seek  not  the 
honor  which  cometh  from  men,  but  the  honor  which  cometh  from 
God."'"  And,  to  quell  that  spirit  of  unholy,  schismatical,  church- 
disorganizing  rivalry  so  deeply  inwoven  in  the  very  nature  of  sin- 
ful humanity, — yea,  and  from  which  even  the  regenerate  are  not 
wholly  exempt— as  may  be  seen  in  the  conduct  of  the  two  sons  of 
^ebedee,  James  and  John" — and  to  allay  the  rising  jealousy  of 
"the  ten"  to\yard  their  erring  brethren,  Jesus  said : — "Ye  know 
that  they  which  are  accounted  to  rule  over  the  Gentiles  exercise  lord- 
ship over  them  ;  and  their  great  ones  exercise  authorit}^  over  them. 
But  so  it  shall  not  he  among  you :  but  whosoever  will  be  great 
among  }' on  shall  be  your  minister :  and  whosoever  will  be  the 
chiefest,  shall  be  the  servant  of  all :  for  even  tlie  Son  of  man  came 
not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many.""  And  so  again  on  another  occasion.  In  oppo- 
sition to  that  overweening  love  of  titles  and  distinctions  prevalent 
among  the  Pharisees,  our  Lord  enjoins  iipon  them,    "  But  be  not 

(1)  John  10  :  1,  2.  (-2)  Jer.  U  :  14 ;  23  :  21,  32  ;  27  :  15.  (3)  Matt.  9  :  38.  (4)  1  Tim.  3:2;  Matt. 
13  :  52  ;  2  Tim.  2:15;  1  Tim.  3  :  6.  (5)  Matt.  16  : 5-12.  (6)  1  Tim.  4  :  16.  (7)  1  Tim.  6:1.  (8)  Titni 
2:1;  Eph.  4  :  14.  (9)  1  Cor.  12  :  4,  25.  (10)  Jolia  5  :  41-44.  (11)  Matt.  20  :  20-23.  (12)  Mark 
10  :  42-^5. 


104 

ye  called  Rubbi :  for  one  is  your  master,  even  Christ,  and  all  ye 
are  brethren.  And  call  no  man  your  father  upon  earth  :  for  one  is 
your  Father,  which  is  in  heaven. — But  he  that  is  greatest  among 
you  shall  be  your  servant.  And  whosoever  shall  exalt  him- 
self SHALL   BE   ABASED  ;    AND  HE  THAT  HUMBLETU  HIMSELF  SHALL  BE 

exalted;'"  admonitions,  one  would  think,  sufficiently  emphatic 
to  deter  Christ's  ministers  from  the  assumption  of  titles  of  distinc- 
tion^ be  they  what  they  may,  which  would  in  the  least  reflect  in- 
vidiously on  any  among  the  "  ALL,"  who  are  alike  denominated 
"  brethken." 

Such,  then,  namely  :  a  changed  heart,  and  a  holy  life — a  Divine 
call — suitable  intellectual  qualifications — soundness  in  doctrine — 
freedom  from  indulgence  in  a  spirit  of  self-adulation,  of  jealousy,  and 
of  a  love  of  the  pre-eminence,  etc.,  being  essential  characteristics  of  the 
Christian  ministry,  the  inference  is,  that  that  ministry  must  be,  in 
its  nature,  eminently  spiritual  and  holy.  We  would,  however,  be- 
fore dismissing  this  subject,  and  in  the  hope  of  adding  greater  force 
and  impressiveness  thereto,  remark,  that  it  is  made  an  imperative 
duty  upon  all,  to  withdraiv  themselves  from  those  who,  claiming  to  he 
ministers  of  Christ,  are  nevertheless  not  only  unholy  in  life,  hut  who 
"  HANDLE  THE  WORD  OF  GoD  DECErrFDLLY."  "  Bcwarc,"  says  our 
Lord,  "  Beware  of  false  prophets,  which  come  to  you  in  sheep's 
clothing,  but  inwardly  they  are  ravening  wolves.  Ye  shall  know 
them  by  their  fruits,"  etc."  Such  are  styled  "  blind  leaders  of  the 
blind:" 3  "false  apostles,  deceitful  workers,  transforming  them- 
selves into  the  apostles  of  Christ."''  Such,  primitively,  were 
"Jannes  and  Jambres,"  "  Hymeneus  and  Philetus,"  and  "  Dio- 
trephes,  who  loved  to  have  the  pre-eminence."'  They  were 
"men  of  corrupt  minds,  reprobate  concerning  the  faith;""  "hav- 
ing a  form  of  godliness,  but  denying  the  power  thereof:"  some  of 
them  "teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men;"^  and 
*'  changing  times  and  laws,"  etc. :'  while  others,  "by  good  words 
and  fair  speeches  deceived  the  hearts  of  the  simple"'  in  regard  to 
all  the  fandamental  truths  of  Christianity,  "  turning  the  truths  of 
God  into  a  lie,"  and  bringing  in  "damnable  heresies,  even  denying 
the  Lord  who  bought  them."  " 

Now,  with  these  and  the  like  "  deceivers,"  the  Church  of  Christ 
has  been  more  or  less  infected,  from  the  New  Testament  times  to 
this  day.  It  Avas  predicted  that  thus  it  should  be,  of  which  the 
following  by  Paul  is  a  specimen.  "  For  I  know  this,  that  after 
my  departing,  shall  grievous  wolves  enter  in  amortg  you,  not  spar- 
ing the  flock.  Also  of  your  own  selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking 
perverse  things,  to  draw  away  disciples  after  them.""  "They 
shall  deceive,  if  it  be  possible,  the  very  elect."  " 

Therefore,  "  beware."  The  declaration  of  our  Lord  concerning 
the  conduct  of  his  "  sheep"  in  regard  to  such — "  a  stranger  will 

(1)  Matt.  23  :  12.  (2)  Matt.  7  :  15-20.  (3)  lb.  15  :  14.  (4)  2  Cor.  11  :  23,  and  v.  13.  Cj)  3  John 
V.  9.  (6)  2  Tim.  3  :  1-13.  (7)  Matt.  13  :  9.  (9)  Dan.  7  :  25.  (9)  Rom.  16  :  18.  (10)  2  Pet.  2  : 1. 
(11)  Acts  '20  :  29,  30.     (12)  Matt.  24  :  24. 


105 

tliej  not  follow,  but  will  flee  from  him  ;"  '  by  implication  not  only 
asserts  the  right  but  imposes  the  duty,  to  forsake  all  unholy  and 
heretical  ministers,  who  "  consent  not  to  wholesome  words,  even 
the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  doctrine  which  is 
according  to  godliness."  *  And  especially  from  those  of  them  who, 
in  addition  to  their  departure  from  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ, 

"  LOKD  IT  OVER  God's  HEKFTAGe"  '  BY  SUBJECTING  HER  TO  A  SYSTEM  OF 

Judaico-Christianized  ceremonials  and  will-worship,  which 
neither  we  nor  our  fathers  were  able  to  bear ;  ^  and  that  for  the 
reason,  that  they  are  proud,  knowing  nothing,  but  doting  about 
questions  and  words  of  strife,  Avhereof  cometh  envy,  strife,  railings, 
evil  surmisings,  perverse  disputings  of  men  of  corrupt  minds,  and 
destitute  of  the  truth,  supposing  that  gain  is  godliness."  ^  * 

Now,  "  from  such,"  says  the  ajoo'stle,  '•'■withdraw  thyself"  And, 
as  though  this  were  insufficient,  he  adds  in  another  place,  "  Now 
we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  ye  withdraw  yourself  from  every  brother  that  walketh  disor- 
derly, and  not  after  the  tradition  which  he  received  of  us."  •* 


SECTION  V. 

Ministerial  Orders.  How  many  were  there  ? — Process  of  reduction  and  classification — 1st, 
By  their  titles — Of  the  above  sixty,  forty  bore  no  titles  ecclesiastical — those  with 
titles  (twenty  in  all) ,  the  number  reduced  to  eight — These  compared  with  Eph. 
4 :  11. — The  present  divinely-appointed  ministry  must  correspond  with  those  of 
the  above  who  were  designed  to  constitute  the  ordinary  and  permanent  orders  of 
said  ministry  for  all  time — Further  reduction  of  the  remaining  New  Testament 
appointments  to  this  standard — Process — Classification  according  to  their  powers 
or  functions,  in  connection  with  their  titles — Eph.  4:11,  harmonized  with  1  Cor. 
12  :  28 — Their  powers — Varied,  both  in  degree  and  duration — The  first,  apostles, 
superior — Seven  marks  of,  etc. 

From  the  nature  of  the  New  Testament  ministry,  pass  we  now 
to  consider, 

III. — Their  Orders.  The  question  here  is,  how  many  orders 
are  there  ?     One,  three,  thirteen,  or  thirty  ?  * 

1.  To  determine  this  point,  we  shall  limit  the  test  to  those  of  the 
appointments  (given  on  pages  98-102)  which  can  be  traced  too.  de- 
finite source^  or  which  bear  a  definite  ecclesiastical  title.  The  whole 
number  of  appointments  is  sixty :  of  which  those  of  whose  ap- 
pointments no  account  is  given,   and  who  bear  no  ecclesiastical 

(1)  John  10  :  5.  (-2)  1  Tim.  6  :  3.  (3)  1  Peter  5  :  3.  (4)  Acts  15  :  10.  (5)  2  Tim.  5  :  3-5.  (6)  2 
ThcS3.  3  ;  6. 

*  It  is  our  deep,  deliberate,  and  solemn  conviction  and  belief,  that  to  no  other  portion 
of  nominal  Christendom  will  these  words  apply,  in  the  same  sense  and  to  the  same 
extent,  as  to  the  present  divided  and  distracted  condition  of  things  in  the  Anglican  and 
American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.     "  May  God  help  her,  and  that  right  early  /" 


106 

title,  amount  in  all  io  forty.  Those,  deducted  from  tlie  aggregate 
number,  leave  twenty.  But,  of  this  latter  number  it  is  clear  that 
the  above  question  cannot  be  determined  alone  by  the  names  or 
titles  borne  by  them  respectively.  For,  besides  that  several  who 
performed  mmisterial  acts  have  no  titles  assigned  to  them ; — viz. : 
No.  3,  the  man  who  cast  out  devils ;  No.  4,  the  man  sent  to 
preach ;  and  No.  12,  Barnabas,  as  sent  forth  by  the  Church  at  Je- 
rusalem ; — of  those  who  have,  if  taken  as  they  stand,  it  would  con- 
siderably swell  the  amount  beyond  any  admitted  number  of  orders 
extant.  They  may  be  classified  thus :  Nos.  1,  5,  6,  11,  13,  and 
17,  speak  of  apostles  :  No.  2,  of  the  seventy  disciples  :  Nos.  7  and 
58,  of  deacons  :  Nos.  10  and  11,  of  evangelists  :  Nos.  8  and  57,  of 
elders  or  bishops  :  Nos.  9  and  15,  of  prophets  and  teachers  :  No.  18, 
of  deaconesses  :  No.  57,  of  the  apocalyptic  angels  or  stars. 

These  titles  give  us,  1st,  apostles ;  2d,  disciples;  3d,  deacons ; 
4th,  deaconesses ;  5th,  jprophets ;  6th,  teachers ;  7th,  elders ;  8th, 
evangelists ;  9th,  angels ;  a  larger  number,  this,  of  Orders,  than 
those  enumerated  by  Paul,  Eph.  4  :  11,  where  he  names  apostles, 
prophets^  evangelists^  pastors  or*  teachers  :  in  all,  four. 

Of  course,  it  will  not  be  pretended  that  there  are  any  orders  now 
extant,  which,  taken  as  a  whole,  will  bear  the  least  resemblance  to 
the  above,  either  in  number  or  in  titles. 

This  premised,  we  shall  now  assume  as  incontrovertible,  that 
any  extant  ministry  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  claiming  to  be  of  Di- 
vine appointment,  must  bear  evident  marks  of  identity  with  what 
was  designed  to  be  the  permanent  orders  in  that  Church  for  all  time, 
of  those  which  constituted  the  aggregate  body  during  the  apostolic 
age. 

Our  first  business,  therefore,  is,  to  reduce  the  above  number  of 
the  New  Testament  ministerial  appointments  to  this  standard. 

This  done,  and  we  shall  be  prepared  to  search  out  those  portions 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  where  this  ministry  is  to  be  found. 

The  question,  then,  presents  itself  ^ — Out  of  the  above-named  ap- 
pointments, how  is  the  number  to  be  reduced  to  the  divinely-ap- 
pointed standard  orders  ?     There  is  no  other  way  than — 

1.  By  a  deduction  therefrom,  of  all  those  who,  from  the  circum- 
stances of  their  origin,  and  the  nature  and  design  of  their  appoint- 
ments, had  no  titles  assigned  to  them.  These  were,  first.  No.  3, 
the  man  who  was  sent  to  preach  ;  second.  No.  4,  the  man  who  cast 
out  devils ;  and  third.  No.  12,  Barnabas,  as  sent  forth  by  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem. 

The  same  will  apply,  fourth,  to  No.  2,  the  seventy  disciples 
whose  ministry  ended  before  the  crucifixion ;  fifth,  to  No.  18,  the 
deaconesses,  whose  office  at  an  early  period  was  lost  to  the  Church. 

The  next  process  is, — 

2.  By  a  grouping  together  of  all  bearing  the  same  title.     These 

*  "  Teachers" — a  word  added,  to  explain  the  figurative  "  pastors,"  and  so  without  the 
article,  and  epexigetical.     (The  Rev.  S.  H.  Cox,  D.D.) 


107 

were,  sixth,  No.  1,  "  the  twelve,"  called  dnooToXoi ;  seventh,  No. 
5,  Paul,  dTToaroAof ;  eighth  and  ninth,  Nos.  6  and  13,  Saul  and 
Barnabas,  diroaroXoL -^  tenth,  No.  17,  Epaphroditus,  dnoaroXog -^ 
and  eleventh,  No.  11,  Matthias,  diroaToXog. 

8.  The  next  is,  a  classification  of  those  whose  titles  were  used 
interchangeably ;  for  example,  twelfth,  thirteenth,  and  fourteenth,- 
Nos.  10,  16,  and  17,  Paul  calls  Timothy,  Titus,  and  Epaphroditus 
his  companions  in  labor,  etc. ;  while  in  No.  10  he  charges  Timothy 
to  do  the  work  of  an  evangelist.  Therefore,  they  were  all  three 
evangehsts.  So  also,  fifteenth  and  sixteenth,  Nos.  8  and  57, 
"elders,"  TrpeofSyrepoi^  and  "bishops,"  emoKonoi^  denote  the  same 
oflfice.     The  remainder  are, 

4.  Seventeen  and  eighteen,  Nos.  7  and  58,  deacons ;  nineteen, 
Nos.  9  and  15,  prophets  and  teachers ;  and  twenty.  No.  57, 
angels. 

The  next  step  of  our  advance,  is,  by  deducting  the  five  appoint- 
ments referred  to  in  the  first  of  the  above  scales,  to  determine 
which  of  the  remainder,  as  viewed  in  the  double  aspect  of  ministerial 
powers  or  functions  AND  titles^  were  intended  to  be  temporary  only, 
as  contradistinguished  from  those  which  were  designed  for  the  per- 
manent upbuilding  and  edification  of  the  Church,  to  the  end  of  the 
present  dispensation. 

At  this  point,  then,  the  question  of  ministerial  orders,  necessa- 
rily merges  into  that  regarding, 

rV. — Their  Poweks  ok  Functions. 

By  this  we  mean,  simply,  that  the  rank  or  order  of  each,  is 
to  be  inferred  from  the  work  assigned  to  each.  Not,  however, 
exclusively.  For,  their  names  or  titles^  surely,  are  not  mere 
empty  sounds,  without  sense  or  meaning.  Nor  does  it  alter 
the  case,  that,  in  some  instances,  the  same  name  or  title  is  em- 
ployed to  denote  entirely  separate  and  distinct  functions  of  dif- 
ferent orders.  For,  in  addition  to  the  fact,  as  will  appear  in 
the  sequel,  that  a  name,  commonly  appropriated  to  denote,  by 
way  of  eminence,  a  particular  order,  is  sometimes  applied  to  those 
exercising  different  functions  under  another  title  ;  and  again, 
that  two  different  names  or  titles  are  sometimes  employed  to 
designate  the  same  order ;  so,  on  the  other  hand,  the  same  name  is 
sometimes  employed  to  denote  the  various  functions  or  species  of 
one  genus  or  order. 

With  these  preliminaries  in  view,  we  remark,  that  the  powers  or 
functions  and  titles  now  to  be  examined,  regard  tlie  following,  as 
what  remain  in  the  preceding  summary  of  ministerial  appointments 
by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  viz. :  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists, 
TEACHERS,  ELDERS,  Or  augcls  (which  Order,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter, 
embraces  two  classes — those  of  teaching  or  preaching,  and  ruling 
elders — ).  deacons,  in  all,  six  in  number. 


4   . 


108 

Now,  by  deducting  from  these,  those  bearing  the  titles  of  elders, 
as  embracing  both  classes  of  teaching  and  ruling  elders,  and  dea- 
cons ;  the  remaining  four  will  be  found  precisely  to  correspond 
with  those  given  by  Paul,  Eph.  4  :  11.  "  And  he"  (Christ,  "  when 
he  ascended  up  on  high,")  "  gave  some,  apostles  ;  and  some,  pro- 
phets ;  and  some,  evangelists,  and  some,  pastors  {alias  angels) 
or  teachers. 

But  it  will  be  asked.  How  is  this  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
statement  in  1  Cor.  12  :  28  ?  "  God  hath  set  some  in  the  Church, 
first,  apostles  ;  secondarily,  prophets  ;  thirdly,  teachers ;  after  that, 
miracles  ;  then  gifts  of  healings,  helps,  governments,  diversities  of 
tongues  ;"  in  all,  eight  in  number. 

We  submit  the  following,  as  furnishing  what  we  conceive  to  be  a  sa- 
tisfactory reply.  In  the  latter  passage,  we  understand  the  apostle  to 
speak  of  ministerial  orders  by  their  powers  or  functions  and  titles  ; 
•while  in  the  former,  he  presents  them  to  view  under  the  aspect  of 
their  titles  only.  It  follows,  that  they  can  be  made  to  harmonize 
on  no  other  principle  than  that,  talcen  together^  they  set  forth  their 
respective  endowments. 

The  question,  therefore,  to  be  determined  is  this :  Were  all 
those  who  were  engaged  in  preaching,  baptizing,  teaching,  etc., 
and  in  governing  the  Church  during  the  New  Testament  age,  pos- 
sessed of  the  same  endowments — that  is,  the  same  in  degree,  and 
in  duration,  and  to  the  same  end  ?  So  far  from  it,  they  were  cha- 
racterized by  the  greatest  possihle  diversities  of  "  gifts,"  "  opera- 
tions," and  "administrations."  "Wisdom,"  "knowledge,"  "faith," 
"the  working  of  miracles,"  "prophecy,"  "discerning  of  spirits," 
"divers  kinds  of  tongues,"  and  "the  interpretation  of  tongues,"* 
were  all  severally  distributed  for  specifically  different  ends.,  in 
accordance  with  the  sovereign  will  of  the  same  Lord  God  and  his 
Spirit."  As  "  the  body  is  not  one  member,  but  many"^ — the  eye, 
the  ear,  the  hand,  the  foot — each  performs  its  functions,  whether 
superior  or  subordinate,  in  harmony  with  their  respective  relations 
to  tliat  body,  as  a  whole. 

Which  one,  then,  of  the  above  orders  now  under  consideration, 
constituted,  in  the  highest  sense,  the  sitperior  ministry.^  of  the 
New  Testament  Church  ?  In  the  Pauline  catalogues,  as  given  in 
1  Cor.  12  :  28,  and  Eph.  4  :  11,  both  open  with, 

I.— "First.  Apostles:^ 

Let  us  then,  in  the  first  place,  attend  to  the  marhs  or  signs., 
essential  to  this  office.  First.  An  apostle  must  have  been  called 
and  chosen  by  Christ  himself  Second.  He  must  have  been  able, 
as  an  eye-witness,  to  attest  the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection  and 
ascension,  either  immediately,  as  the  twelve,  or  by  evident  conse- 
quence, as  Paul.     Third.    He  must  have  been  an  inspired  perison, 

(J)  1  Cor.  12.     (2)  John  3  :  34.     (3)  1  Cor.  12  :  12-27. 


109 

and  an  infallible  guide  to  the  Cliurcli,  as  tlie  canon  of  Scripture 
was  not  then  complete.  Fourth.  He  must  have  been  endowed 
with  miraculous  powers.  Fifth.  He  must  have  been  able  to  im- 
part the  extraordinary  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  others.  Sixth.  He 
must  have  possessed  the  right  and  warrant  to  instruct  all  nations, 
and  exercise  his  functions  every  where.  And,  seventh.  He  must 
have  possessed  the  power  to  govern  absolutely,  according  to  dis- 
cretion, under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost.* 

Now,  do  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  bear  out  these  marks  or 
signs,  in  their  application  to  "  the  twelve  ?"     Let  us  try  the 

First,  by  that  standard.  In  our  list  of  ministerial  appointments, 
No.  I.  assigns  that  of  "  the  twelve"  to  Christ,  jpersonally. 
Mark  says,  "  and  he  (Christ)  ordained  twelve,  that  they  should  be 
with  him,"  etc'  Their  names  were,  Peter,  Andrew,  James  the  son 
of  Zebedee,  John,  Philip,  Bartholomew,  Thomas,  Matthew,  James 
the  son  of  Alpheus,  Lebbeus,  Simon  the  Canaanite,  and  Judas 
Iscariot.^  To  these  " twelve,"  Jesus  gave  the  name  of  "Apos- 
tles."^ 

The  second.  As  it  respects  "  the  twelve,"  Christ,  having 
called  them  as  his  personal  companions  during  his  ministry,  and 
having  "  showed  himself  alive  to  them  after  his  passion,"  he  said, 
"  ye  shall  receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon 
you :  and  ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me,  both  in  Jerusalem,  and 
in  all  Judea,  and  in  all  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  part  of  the 
earth."'  So,  in  regard  to  Paul,  whose  mission,  having  "  seen^^ 
Christ — though  "as  of  one  born  out  of  due  time"'^ — was  no  less  cir- 
cumscribed. As  "  an  Apostle,  (not  of  men,  neither  by  man,  but 
hy  Jesus  ChHst^  and  God  the  Father^  who  raised  him  from  the 
dead,)^  he  labored  more  abundantly  than  they  all."' 

The  third.  In  reference  to  the  matter  of  inspiration  peculiar 
to  New  Testament  times,  the  fact,  we  observe,  of  Paul's  detail, 
with  so  much  minuteness,  of  the  "  diversities  of  gifts"  conferred 
"  by  the  Spirit,"  and  actually  possessed  and  exercised  by  the  Co- 
rinthian believers,'  renders  it  certain  that  the  divine  affiatus  was 
not  exclusively  confined  to  themselves.  Nor  is  it  less  certain  that 
they  (the  apostles)  possessed  it  in  a  super-eminent  degree.  What- 
ever difiiculties  may  attend  our  determination  of  the  difference  of 
import  of  the  /loyof  oofpiag,  "  the  word  of  toisdom,^^^  as  distin- 
guished from  the  Xoyog  yvo)oeo)g,  "  the  word  of  knowledge,'''  as  to 
the  order  of  their  distribution  ;  and  also  those  other  gifts,  namely, 
"faith,"  "the  gifts  of  heahng,"  "the  working  of  miracles,"  "pro- 
phecy," "discerning  of  spirits,"  speaking  with  "  tongues,"  and  "the 
interpretation  of  tongues ;"  yet,  that  these  endowments,  so  far  as 
bestowed  upon  and  exercised  by  the  "  prophets  and  teachers"  of 
the  Church,  were  inferi<yr  to  those  conferred  on  the  apostles,  is 

(1)  Mark  3  :  14.     (2)  Matt.  10  :  2-4  ;  Mark  3  :  16-19 ;  Luke  6  :  13-16.     (3)  Luke  6  :  13  ;  Matt  10 : 9. 
(4)  Acts  1  :  3-8.     (5)    1  Cor.  l.i  :  3.     (6)   Gal.  1  :  1-12.     (7)    1  Cor.  15  :  10.     (8)  1  Cor.  13. 

*  See  Barrow's  Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  64. 


110 

demonstrable  from  the  fact  of  Paul's  appeal  to  the  proofs  of  Me 
apostleship  wrought  among  the  Corinthians,  "  in  signs,  and  won- 
ders, and  mighty  deeds;"  and  of  his  declaration,  that  he  "spoke 
with  tongues  viore  than  they  all ;''"'  and  that  he  could  boast  of 
visions  and  revelations  vouchsafed  to  him,  transcending  any  to 
which  the  jt?s<^w<^Zo-prophets  could  lay  claim.  So,  of  their  pre-emi- 
nent inspiration.  "  If  any  man,"  says  Paul,  "  think  himself 
to  be  a  prophet,  or  spiritual,  let  him  acknowledge  that  the  things 
that  I  write  unto  you  are  the  commandments  (or  injunctions)  of 
the  Lord."  To  the  same  effect  speaks  the  apostle  John.  "He  that 
is  of  God  lieareth  us :  he  that  is  not  of  God  heareth  not  us :  hereby 
know  we  how  to  distinguish  the  spirit  of  truth  from  the  spirit  of 
error." 

The  proof  of  the  apostolic  inspiration,  then,  is,  that  the  apostles 
claimed  implicit  submission  to  their  authority  as  infallible  and 
divinely-commissioned  teachers,  appealing  to  their  miraculous 
powers  as  credentials  of  their  prophetic  and  plenary  inspiration, 
and  that  those  claims  were  recognized.  As  it  is  impossible  they 
could  themselves  be  deceived,  either  they  must  have  been  what 
they  claimed  to  be,  infallible^  or  they  were  impostors.  But,  as  it 
is  impossible  that  such  imposture  should  not  have  been  detected 
and  exposed,  the  history  of  Christianity  attests  at  once  the  irre- 
fragable character  of  the  evidence,  and  the  genuineness  of  those 
pretensions,  by  which  the  Divine  signet  is  af&xed  to  all  that  they 
taught.* 

The  fourth.  That  "the  twelve"  were  endowed  with  Tniraculoua 
powers^  is  manifest  from  the  entire  history,  both  of  their  vocation^ 
and  of  their  work.  The  functions  apostolic  were  gradually  de- 
veloped under  two  separate  and  distinct  commissions. 

1.  The  first  transpired  under  Christ,  in  his  capacity  of  Messiah 
of  the  Jewish  nation^  the  primary  object  of  whose  mission  as  such 
was,  if  they  would,  "  to  restore  the  kingdom" — by  the  re-institu- 
tion of  the  rejected  and  long-lost  theocracy — "  to  Israel."'  Hence 
the  limited  tenure  of  this  commission.  Jesus  having  sent  them 
forth  "  by  two  and  two,"'  "  commanded  them,  saying,  Go  not 
into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans 
enter  ye  not :  hut  go  rather  to  the  lost  sJi^eep  of  the  house  of 
IsraeV'^  This  commission  was  founded  on  their  immediate  en- 
dowment of  miraculous  power  "  against  unclean  spirits,  to  cast 
them  out,  and  to  heal  all  manner  of  sickness  and  all  manner  of 
disease."*  They  were  also,  at  the  same  time,  empowered  to  preach," 
and  to  baptize.* 

But,  this  JwcZaico-Christian  commission  of  "the  twelve"  ended 
with  the  nation's  rejection,  of  Christ  as  their  Messiah^  when  they 
exclaimed,  "  We  have  no  king  but  Caesar !"    Meanwhile,  a  vacancy 

0)  Acts  1  :  6.  (2)  Mark  6  :  7.  (3)  Matt.  10  :  6.  (4)  Matt.  10  :  1  ;  Mark  3  :  15  ;  6  :  7, 13  ;  Luke 
9  : 1.     (5)  Matt.  10  :  1  ;   Mark  3:14;   Luke  0  :  l.    (6)  John  4:1,2. 

*  Literary  History  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  286.    London :  Seely  &  Co.,  1845. 


Ill 

occurs  in  the  apostolic  college,  by  the  apostasy  of  Iscariot.'     Pass 
we  now,  therefore, 

2.  To  the  second  commission  of  "  the  eleven."  Not  that  this 
commission  consisted  in  the  creation  of  a  new  office.  This  could 
not  be,  inasmuch  as,  under  the  first,  tliey  were  fully  invested 
with  their  apostolic  character.  But  now,  Christ,  having  expiated 
sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself  on  the  cross,  immediately  after  his 
resurrection,  appears  to  them  "  in  the  mountain  where  he  had 
appointed  to  meet  them  ;"  and  in  virtue  of  the  "  all  power  given 
to  him  of  the  Father  both  "in  heaven  and  on  earth,"  the  func- 
tions apostolic  of  the  first  commission,  having  a  relation  only  to 
that  part  of  the  covenant  Abrahamic  which  belonged  to  the  literal 
Israel,  are  now  so  enlarged,  as  to  be  adapted  to  the  extension  of 
the  blessings  of  the  same  covenant  to  "«/^  tlie  nations  and  fami- 
lies of  the  earthy  This  commission  is  set  forth  in  the  following 
terms,  by  Mark  and  Matthew : 

Mark  16  :  15,  16.  Matt.  28  :  19,  20. 

'■'■  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
the  Gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the 
believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
saved ;  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
be  damned."  all    things  whatsoever    I   have    com- 

manded you." 

And,  to  this  commission,  the  pledge  is  given,   ^^  And.,  lo,  I  am 
with  YO  TJ  alway.,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  worldP 

The  theater  of  their  future  operations,  therefore,  is  no  longer 
confined   to  the   narrow   limits  of  Judea.      "  The  field  is  tue 

WORLD  !" 

But,  the  commission,  as  here  given,  only  enjoins  upon  "  the 
eleven"  that  they  preach,  baptize,  and  teach.  Are  we  then,  hence 
to  infer,  that  these  constituted  the  full  extent  of  their  apostolic 
functions  under  this  second  commission  ?  What,  were  their  mira- 
culous powers,  which,  as  shown  above,  entered  into  the  very 
essence  of  their  apostolic  character  and  functions  under  the  first 
commission,  considered  essential  in  promoting  and  securing  the 
end  of  their  ministry  among  the  Jews ;  while,  now  that  they  were 
henceforth  to  be  engaged  in  propagating  the  Gospel  throughout 
the  wide-spread  world  of  Paganism,  there  existed  no  necessity  for 
the  continuance  of  the  same  powers  ?  So  far  from  it,  granting 
that,  in  the  form  of  this  commission,  there  is  no  express  reference 
to  these  powers,  it  could  not  in  consistency  be  inferred  that  they 
no  longer  formed  apart  of  the  apostolic  functions.  We  afl^rm, 
that  those  miraculous  powers  constituted  a  component  part  of  those 
functions,  as  well  under  the  la.?t^  as  under  the  first,  commission. 
We  affirm  also,  that,  so  far  as  "  the  eleven"  were  concerned,  they 
not  only  never  ceased  to  exist,  but  were,  under  the  second  com- 
mission, considerably  enlarged. 

(1)  Luke  22  :  3  ;  John  13  :  26. 


114 

so  that,  from  Jerusalem,  and  round  about  unto  Illyricum,  I  have 
fully  preached  the  Gospel  of  Christ.'" 

The  fifth  mark  or  sign  of  an  apostle.  He  must  have  been  able 
to  impart  tue  gift  of  tpte  Holy  Ghost  to  others.  This  was  a 
power  pre-eminently  and  exclusively  theirs.  Other  ministers  and 
even  private  believers  might  perform  miracles,  but  it  was  only  as 
they  deriv^ed  the  power  to  do  so  from  the  apostles  through  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  See  this  illustrated  in  the  instances  of  the 
converts  of  Samaria,  by  Peter  and  John ;  on  Cornelius  and  those 
with  him  who  heard  the  word,  by  Peter ;  and  by  Paul,  on  the 
twelve  disciples  at  Ephesus,  and  on  Timothy."  The  only  excep- 
tion to  the  above,  was  in  the  case  of  the  apostle  Paul's  receiving 
this  gift  at  the  hand  of  Ananias,  who  derived  his  power,  7iot  from 
the  apostles,  but  from  "the  Lord."' 

The  sixth.  He  must  have  possessed  the  right  and  warrant  to 
instimct  all  nations,  and  exercise  his  functions  every  ivhere.  This  is 
evident  from  the  tenure  of  the  commission  itself,  and  from  their 
qualification  therefor,  through  the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues. 
Finally, 

The  seventh.  He  must  have  possessed  the  power  to  govern  ab- 
solutely, according  to  discretion,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Under  this  function  apostolic  is  embraced  the  prerogative 
to  bind  and  loose,  to  retain  and  remit  sin,  etc.  Hence  their  in- 
flictions of  punishments  and  judgments  from  God  on  others :  for 
example,  the  signal  judgment  of  Peter  on  Ananias  and  Sapphira  ; 
and  of  Paul  on  Elymas  the  sorcerer ;  on  Hymeneus  and  Alexan- 
der ;  and  on  the  incestuous  Corinthians.* 

Thus  much,  then,  respecting  the  marks  or  signs  of  the  New 
Testament  apostles.  They  were  appointed  by  Christ  personally, 
either  immediately,  as  "the  eleven,"  or  mediately,  as  Paul.  They 
were  eye-witnesses  of  Christ's  resurrection  and  ascension.  They 
were  inspired  and  infallible.  They  were  endowed  with  miraculous 
powers.  They  alone  could  impart  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Their  mission  and  functions  were  adapted  to  universality,  and 
they  governed,  etc.,  absolutely. 

(1)  Rorn.  15  :  18,  19.      (2)  Acts  8  :  14-17  ;  10  :  44  ;  10  :  6  ;  2  Tim.  1  :  6,  7.     (3)  Acts  9  :  17.     (4)  Ao 
0  :  1-11  ;  13  :  11  ;  1  Tim.  1  :  20  ;  1  Cor.  6  :  4,  6 


115 


SECTION   VT. 

The  Equality  of  "  the  Twelve  Apostles." — The  claim  of  Primacy  and  Supremacy  in 
behalf  of  Peter,  considered. — Fallacy  of — Arguments.  1st.  In  their  Commission, 
Christ  addressed  all  alike. — 2d.  His  name.  1st :  Its  change  from  Simon  to  Cephas. 
—UcTpni.—2<i:  Exposition  of  Matt.  IG  :  18,  19,  "On  this  rock,"  etc.— 3d:  Do.  of 
the  latter  clause,  "  the  keys,"  etc. — 4th:  Do.  of  John  21  :  15-17,  "  Feed  my  sheep," 
etc. — 5th:  Review  of  Peter's  official  acts. —  (1.)  The  Convocation  of  Jerusalem. 
Acts  8  :  14-27. —  (2.)  His  accusation  and  defense,  Acts  12  :  1-18. —  (3.)  Dispute 
about  Circumcision,  Acts  15  :  1-21. —  (4.)  Do.  between  Paul  and  Peter,  Gal.  2: 
11-14. —  (5.)  Peter  styles  himself,  not  the  apostle,  but  an  apostle,  etc. 

IV. — But,  another  inquiry  of  vital  moment  now  presents  itself. 
It  regards  the  subject 

Of  the  EQUALITY  of  the  apostolic  functions  of  "  the  twelve." 
The  question  is  : — Had  any  one  of  "  the  twelve"  a  precedence  in 
rank  or  authority  either  over  the  others^  or  of  primacy  or  svprem- 
axiy  in  the  Church  of  Christ  f 

Here  again,  as  on  the  question  of  the  Apostolic  Orders,  we  shall 
appeal  to  our  only  recognized  standard,  "  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible 
glone." 

Now,  it  will  at  once  occur  to  the  reader,  that  the  name  of  the 
apostle  Peter  is  prominently  identitied  with  what  is  to  be  offered 
on  this  subject.  It  is  admitted,  (at  least  a  superficial  view  of  the 
matter  would  predispose  one  to  admit,)  that  if  any  one  of  "  the 
twelve"  was  distinguished  above  his  compeers  in  rank  or  authority, 
or  held  primacy  or  supremacy  in  the  Church,  it  was  Peter. 

But,  was  he  thus  distinguished  ?  Superiority  in  these  premises 
may  be  predicated  of  one  of  the  four  following  qualities  :  1st.  Age. 
2d.  Talents.  3d.  Character.  4th.  Office.  Now,  Peter  might 
have  been  the  eldest  of  "  the  twelve,"  or  at  least  the  first  of  the 
number  called  by  Christ.*  But  this  circumstance  alone,  surely, 
could  not  have  entitled  him  to  that  dignity.  To  urge  in  his  behalf 
the  other  two — talents  and  character  of  a  pre-eminent  order,  com- 
pared with  his  associates — were  no  less  dubious  than  invidious. 
And,  as  it  regards  office^  the  Scriptures,  we  affirm,  affiDrd  no  coun- 
tenance to  the  claim  of  superiority  or  supremacy  in  his  behalf. 
True,  Peter  did  receive  from  Christ  on  several  occasions,  marked 
tokens  of  esteem.*  It  is  equally  true  that  he  possessed  many 
traits  of  character  which  need  but  to  be  named  to  command  our  ad- 
miration. And  though  the  impetaosity  of  this  apostle's  tempera- 
ment sometimes  betrayed  him  into  error, ^  yet  who  does  not  love  to 
contemplate  his  promptitude,  decision,  courage,  and  zeal,  in  his 

(1)  Matt.  16  :  13-19  ;  Mark  9:2;  John  21  :  15-17.     (2)  Matt.  26  :  69-7.5  ;  .lohn  91  :  1-3. 
*  Though,  by  the  way,  he  was  not,  for  that  honor  belonged,  net  to  Peter,  but  to  An- 
drew his  brother,  who  brought  him  to  Christ.     John  1  :  40—42. 


114 

so  that,  from  Jerusalem,  and  round  about  unto  Illyricum,  I  have 
fully  preached  the  Gospel  of  Christ.'" 

The  fifth  mark  or  sign  of  an  apostle.  He  must  have  been  able 
to  impart  tub  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  otiikrs.  This  was  a 
power  pre-eminently  and  exclusively  theirs.  Other  ministers  and 
even  private  believers  might  perform  miracles,  but  it  was  only  as 
they  derived  the  power  to  do  so  from  the  apostles  through  the  gift 
of  the  Iloly  Ghost.  See  this  illustrated  in  the  instances  of  the 
converts  of  Samaria,  by  Peter  and  John ;  on  Cornelius  and  those 
with  him  who  heard  tlie  word,  by  Peter ;  and  by  Paul,  on  the 
twelve  disciples  at  Ephesus,  and  on  Timothy,'  The  only  excep- 
tion to  the  above,  was  in  the  case  of  the  apostle  Paul's  receiving 
this  gift  at  the  hand  of  Ananias,  who  derived  his  power,  not  from 
the  apostles,  but  from  "the  Lord."' 

The  sixth.  He  must  have  possessed  the  right  and  warrant  to 
instruct  all  nations^  and  exercise  his  functions  even'y  xoliere.  This  is 
evident  from  the  tenure  of  the  commission  itself,  and  from  their 
qualification  therefor,  through  the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues. 
Finally, 

The  seventh.  He  must  have  possessed  the  power  to  govern  ab- 
solutely^ according  to  discretion,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Under  this  function  apostolic  is  embraced  the  prerogative 
to  bind  and  loose,  to  retain  and  remit  sin,  etc.  Hence  their  in- 
flictions of  punishments  and  judgments  from  God  on  others :  for 
example,  the  signal  judgment  of  Peter  on  Ananias  and  Sapphira  ; 
and  of  Paul  on  Elymas  the  sorcerer ;  on  Hymeneus  and  Alexan- 
der ;  and  on  the  incestuous  Corinthians.* 

Thus  much,  then,  respecting  the  marks  or  signs  of  the  New 
Testament  apostles.  They  were  appointed  by  Christ  personally, 
either  immediately,  as  "the  eleven,"  or  mediately,  as  Paul.  They 
were  eye-witnesses  of  Christ's  resurrection  and  ascension.  They 
were  inspired  and  infallible.  They  were  endowed  with  miraculous 
powers.  They  alone  could  impart  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Their  mission  and  functions  were  adapted  to  universality,  and 
they  governed,  etc.,  absolutely. 

(1)  Rom.  15  :  18,  19.      (2)  Acts  8  :  14-17  ;  10  :  44  ;  19  :  6  ;  2  Tim.  1  :  6,  7.     (3)  Acts  9  :  17.     (4)  Ac 
6  : 1-11  ;  13  :  11  ;  1  Tim.  1  :  20  ;  1  Cor.  5  :  4,  6 


115 


SECTION   VI. 

The  Equality  of  "  the  Twelve  Apostles." — The  claim  of  Primacy  and  Supremacy  in 
behalf  of  Peter,  considered. — Fallacy  of — Arguments.  1st.  In  their  Commission, 
Christ  addressed  all  alike. — 2d.  His  name.  1st :  Its  change  from  Simon  to  Cephas. 
— nerpoj.— 2d :  ExjKtsition of  Matt.  IC  :  18,  19,  "On  this  rock,"  etc.— 3d:  Do.  of 
the  latter  clause,  "  the  keys,"  etc. — 4th :  Do.  of  John  21  :  15-17,  "  Feed  my  sheep," 
etc. — 5th:  Review  of  Peter's  official  acts. —  (1.)  The  Convocation  of  Jerusalem. 
Acts  8  :  14-27. —  (2.)  His  accusation  and  defense.  Acts  12  :  1-18. —  (3.)  Dispute 
about  Circumcision,  Acts  15  :  1-21. —  (4.)  Do.  between  Paul  and  Peter,  Gal.  2: 
11-14. —  (5.)  Peter  styles  himself,  not  the  apostle,  but  an  apostle,  etc. 

IV. — But,  another  inquiry  of  vital  moment  now  presents  itself. 
It  regards  the  subject 

Of  the  EQUALITY  of  the  apostolic  functions  of  "  the  twelve." 
The  question  is  : — Had  any  one  of  "  the  twelve"  a  precedence  in 
rank  or  authority  either  over  the  others^  or  of  lyrimacy  or  swpremr 
acy  in  the  Church  of  Christ  f 

Here  again,  as  on  the  question  of  the  Apostolic  Orders,  we  shall 
appeal  to  our  only  recognized  standard,  "the  Bible,  and  the  Bible 
alone." 

Now,  it  will  at  once  occur  to  the  reader,  that  the  name  of  the 
apostle  Peter  is  prominently  identified  with  what  is  to  be  offered 
on  this  subject.  It  is  admitted,  (at  least  a  superficial  view  of  the 
matter  would  predispose  one  to  admit,)  that  if  any  one  of  "  the 
twelve"  was  distinguished  above  his  compeers  in  rank  or  authority, 
or  held  primacy  or  supremacy  in  the  Church,  it  was  Peter. 

But,  was  he  thus  distinguished  ?  Superiority  in  these  premises 
may  be  predicated  of  one  of  the  four  following  qualities  :  1st.  Age. 
2d.  Talents.  3d.  Character,  4th.  Ofhce.  Now,  Peter  might 
have  been  the  eldest  of  "  the  twelve,"  or  at  least  the  first  of  the 
number  called  by  Christ.*  But  this  circumstance  alone,  surely, 
could  not  have  entitled  him  to  that  dignity.  To  urge  in  his  behalf 
the  other  two — talents  and  character  of  a  pre-eminent  order,  com- 
pared with  his  associates — were  no  less  dubious  than  invidious. 
And,  as  it  regards  office^  the  Scriptures,  we  affirm,  afford  no  coun- 
tenance to  the  claim  of  superiority  or  supremacy  in  his  behalf. 
True,  Peter  did  receive  from  Christ  on  several  occasions,  marked 
tokens  of  esteem.'  It  is  equally  true  that  he  possessed  many 
traits  of  character  which  need  but  to  be  named  to  command  our  ad- 
miration. And  though  the  impetuosity  of  this  apostle's  tempera- 
ment sometimes  betrayed  him  into  error,^  yet  who  does  not  love  to 
contemplate  his  promptitude,  decision,  courage,  and  zeal,  in  hia 

(I)  Matt.  16  :  13-19  ;  Mark  9:2;  John  21  :  lo-17.     (2)  Matt.  26  :  63-7.5  ;  John  21  :  1-3. 
*  Though,  by  the  way,  he  was  not,  for  that  honor  belonged,  net  to  Peter,  but  to  Jlii- 
drew  his  brother,  who  brought  him  to  Cliris^t.     John  1  :  40-42. 


116 

Master's  work  !'  Might  it  not  then  have  been  on  these  personal 
grounds  alone,  that  we  are  to  account  for  the  above  acts  of  Christ's 
regard  toward  him  ?  Then  too,  had  Peter  been  the  only  recipient 
of  these  benignant  tokens  of  our  Lord's  esteem,  there  had  been 
some  foundation  upon  which  to  place  him  at  the  head  of  the  apos- 
tolic college.  But,  we  ask,  which  of  "  the  twelve"  Avas  it,  who 
was  privileged  to  pillow  his  liead  upon  the  bosom  of  his  Divine 
Master  at  the  Supper,  and  who  bore  the  name  of  "  the  beloved 
disciple  ?""  If  then,  marked  tokens  of  esteem  from  Christ  to 
Peter  raised  him  above  his  brethren,  John,  at  least,  could  claim  to 
be  his  equal.     And  thus  we  have  two  primates  instead  of  one  !* 

In  evidence,  then,  of  the  perfect  equality  of  "  the  twelve"  in  the 
matter  of  their  apostolical  functions,  we  shall  urge, 

1.  That  Avhen  Christ  commissioned  them,  he  addressed  them  all 
alike :  "Go  ye,  therefore,"  etc.  So  again,  "  And  ye  shall  be  wit- 
nesses unto  me,"  etc.  And  yet  again,  "  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit 
and  retain,  they  are,"  etc.  And  to  these  declarations  may  be  add- 
ed our  Lord's  injunctions  to  them — "  But  be  not  jq  called  Rabbi," 
for  "  ALL  YE  are  hrethrenJ^  "  And  whosoever  of  you  will  be 
chief  est,  shall  be  servant  of  all."  Here,  unquestionably,  is  left 
no  "  chief  seat"  in  favor  of  oixe  of  "  the  twelve"  over  his  com- 
peers ! 

2.  Still,  it  is  alleged,  that  the  NAME  of  Peter  occupies  a  more 
conspicuous  place  in  the  founding  of  the  New  Testament  Church, 
than  either  of  the  others.  Granted.  But,  does  it  hence  follow 
that  he  held  an  official  superiority  over  them,  and  a  primacy  or 
supremacy  in  the  Church  ?  So  far  from  it,  as  we  shall  show,  his 
position  was  predicated  solely  of  those  personal  qualifications 
named  above,  which  so  eminently  fitted  him  rather  than  James  or 
John,  to  act  the  parts  assigned  him  in  that  great  work.  To  this 
circumstance  may  be  attributed, 

1st.  The  change  of  his  nam.e  from  Simon  to  Cephas.  Says 
Jesus  to  him,  "  Thou  art  Simon  the  son  of  Jona — thou  shalt  be 
called  Cephas,  which  is,  by  interpretation,  a  stoneJ^^  On  this  point 
we  remark,  that  there  was  nothing  more  common  among  the  patrir 
archs  and  Jews,  than  this  custom  of  changing  names.  The  name 
of  "  Sarai"  is  changed  to  that  of  "  Sarah ;"  "  Abram"  into  "  Abra- 
ham ;"  "Jacob"  into  "Israel;"  two  of  the  apostles,  James  and 
John,  were  called  "  Boanerges,"  "  sons  of  thunder."  In  each  in- 
stance the  change  adopted  denotes  more  clearly  the  purpose  or 
work  to  be  accomplished  by  them  than  that  expressed  by  the  origi- 
nals. In  regard  to  the  subject  of  these  remarks,  it  is  to  be  borne 
in  mind  that  the  change  was,  the  substitution  of  Cephas  for  Simon. 
"  Cephas,"  which  is  Syriac,  denotes  the  same  thing  as  nerpoc,  Gr., 
i.e.,  a  stone.     It  is  therefore  rather  an  addition  to,  than  a  change 

(1)  Matt.  26  :  31-35  ;  51.     (2)  John  21  :  7,  20.     (3)  John  1  :  42. 

*  "  The  canon  law  hath  decreed,  that  a  personal  privilege  Aoi\\  follow  the  person,  and  is 
extinguished  with  the  person." 


of,  the  name  Peter.  Hence,  the  names  are  used  interchangeably. 
Indeed,  while  this  apostle  is  addressed  or  spoken  of  in  the  New- 
Testament  thirty-two  times  by  the  name  of  Peter,  and  nine  times 
by  tliat  of  Simon  Peter,  the  name  Cephas  occurs  only  six  times  ! 

Now,  Ave  have  already  spoken  of  that  "good  confession"  made 
by  this  apostle,  of  the  Messianic  headship  of  Christ.  The  declara- 
tion which  followed,  bespoke  that  apostle's  eminent  fitness,  j?*?/*- 
sonally^  to  fill  that  place  in  the  common  work  of  erecting  the  glo- 
rious superstracture  of  Christianity,  which  was  to  have  for  its 
"foundation,  the  apostles" — not  one^\>vX  all — "and  prophets," 
and  of  which  "Jesus  Christ  himself  was  the  chief  coenek  stone."' 

2d.  '•'•And  I  say  also  unto  thee^  that  thou  art  Peter  ;  and  upon 
this  ROCK  I  will  huild  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  THE  KEYS  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven:  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  hind  on  earth, 
shall  le  hound  in  heaven  ^  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on 
earth,  shall  he  loosed  in  heaveny^ 

As  preliminary  to  an  exposition  of  this  remarkable  passage,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  refer  to  the  term  "  rock,"  as  a  symbolical 
representation  of  Deity.  As  a  shelter  and  refuge  from  the  assault 
of  enemies,  it  is  employed  to  denote  the  strength  and  power  of 
God  as  an  asylum  and  defense  to  his  people.  Thus,  David.  "The 
Lord  is  my  rocTc  and  my  fortress."  "  Who  is  a  roch  save  our 
God  ?"^  But,  God  is  known  to  his  people  only  as  he  is  mani- 
fested through  Christ.  "  God  hi  Christ."  Hence  the  application 
of  this  symbol — "  the  flinty  rock"  in  Horeb,  from  which  the  Is- 
raelites were  supplied  with  water — to  Christ,  iDy  Paul.  "  They  all 
drank  of  that  sinritual  eock  that  followed  them  :  and  that  rook 
"WAS  Christ."  As  such,  he  is,  pre-eminently,  the  foundation  upon 
which  is  erected  that  spiritual  edifice  which  is  the  home,  the  shel- 
ter, of  the  redeemed  of  all  nations.-  In  this  aspect,  "  other  founda- 
tion can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ." 
To  him  as  such,  the  Divine  attestation  was  given,  when,  havino- 
honored  his  Father  at  his  baptism,  he  was  honored  by  him  by  that 
voice  from  heaven  which  proclaimed,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased."     A  pagan  poet  has  said, 

"  Never  introduce  a  God  unless  upon  an  occasion  worthy  of 
him."* 

The  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  Christ  in  the  form  of  a 
dove,  ratified  that  attestation  from  the  heavens  /  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  Peter's  reply  to  our  Lord's  question,  "  Whom  say  ye 
that  I  am?"  namely:  "thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
LIVING  God,"  was  a  response  thereto  on  earth.  And,  together,  they 
proclaimed  Jesus  as  the  Savior  of  the  world,  and  as  the  divinely 

(1)  Eph.  2  :  30.     (2)  Matt.  16  :  18,  19.     (3)  Psalms  18  :  2,  31. 

♦  "  Non  deus  intersit  nisi  dignus  vindice  modus — inciderit."— //or. 


118 

coNSTrruTED  Head  over  all   things,    to  his  mystical  body,  the 
Church  1 

It  is  here  also  to  be  observed,  that  the  above  reply  of  Peter  was 
the  first  distinct  and  intelligible  confession  of  Christ,  as  here  rep- 
resented, since  his  baptism.  It  set  forth  Christ  as  "  the  Lamb  of 
God  who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  and  of  his  faith  in 
him  as  such.  Noble  declaration  !  Glorious  confession  !  The  stu- 
pendous fabric  of  Christianity  was  to  be  reared  upon  it  through- 
out all  time!  No  marvel,  then,  that  his  Divine  Master  should 
pronounce  him  "  blessed ;".  nor  that  he  should  have  annexed 
thereto  the  declaration,  "  Thou  art  Peter ;  and  upon  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it." 

"  Upon  this  eock."  "We  ask,  then.  Was  Peter  "  this  rock''''  f 
2i)  el  Iltrpof,  Kal  em  ravr-r]  rrj  Trerpa.  "  You  are  Peter ^  and  upon 
this  Pctra^''  strikes  the  ear  of  a  Grecian,  as,  "  Thou  art  stone^  and 
upon  this  rock^''  strikes  the  ear  of  an  Englishman.  And,  this  mode 
of  speech  well  comported  with  a  usage  common  with  the  Savior — 
that  of  consecrating  every  scene,  and  circumstance,  and  topic  of 
conversation,  to  religion  and  morality.  For  example.  When  call- 
ing the  Galilean  fishermen  from  their  ordinary  occupations,  his 
language  is,  "follow  me,  and  I  will  make  you  fi.shers  of  m<j?i."' 
His  disciples  had  forgotten  to  take  bread,  when  embarking  on  the 
lake,  and  when  talking  about  it,  our  Lord  took  occasion  to  say, 
"  beware  of  the  leaven  (doctrine)  of  the  Pharisees."  So,  in  the 
passage  before  us,  he  asks  a  question  respecting  himself,  which 
calls  forth  from  one  of  the  apostles  a  confession  of  that  great  truth 
upon  which  he  is  to  found  his  Church  forever:  '•'•thou  art  the 
Christy  the  Son  of  the  living  God.''''  It  was  that  zealous  and  in- 
trepid apostle,  Peter.  And  Jesus,  turning  to  him,  said,  "Thou 
art  Peter" — "  Cephas.,  which,  by  interpretation,  is  a  stone  /"  "  and 
upon  this  petra,  ROCK,"  that  is,  on  this  great  truth  which 
"  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  to  thee,  but  my  Father  which 
is  in  heaven,"  "  I  will  build  my  Church."  The  thing  sought  after 
by  Christ  in  this  conversation  was  a  confession  that  he  was  the 
Messiah  or  Savior.  Peter  gave  it.  The  conversation,  therefore, 
turned  upon  that  confession,  and  not  upon  Peter.  The  two  words, 
Trerpof  and  TTtrpa,  are  of  different  genders.  The  former  is  mascu- 
line, the  latter  feminine.  So  the  words  "thou"  and  "this,"  differ 
in  person  and  in  case.  "Thou"  is  in  the  second  person,  and  "  this" 
is  in  the  third.  The  word  "  this,"  therefore,  must  refer  to  some- 
thing antecedent,  different  from  "thou"  or  you.  We  will  illus- 
trate it  by  the  aid  of  a  similar  passage.  Addressing  liimself  to  the 
people  on  a  certain  occasion,  our  Lord  said,  "I  will  destroy  this 
temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  again."''  Now,  here  we 
have  the  persons  addressed,  the  subject  of  conversation,  and  the 
speaker.     Were  those  he  addressed,  being  in  the  second  person, 

(1)  Matt.  4  :  18.  19.     (-2)   John  2  :  19. 


119 

and  the  temple,  tlie  same  thing  ?  So  in  the  passage  before  us,  we 
have  Peter,  his  confession,  and  Christ,  the  builder  of  the  Church. 
Were  Peter,  the  second  person,  and  his  confession,  the  same  thing  ? 
The  very  fact  of  the  change  of  person  from  "  thou"  the  personal, 
to  ''this"  the  demonstrative,  proves  the  affinity  of  the  latter  to 
Trerpa,  tiik  rock. 

Peter,  then,  is  but  a  stone^  as  his  name  imports.  But  there  are 
eleven  other  stones  of  equal  value  :  for,  saj^s  the  Holy  Spirit,  "  the 
Church  is  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles" — all  the 
apostles  ;  yea,  and  of  the  "  prophets"  too  !  When,  then,  all  the 
stones  are  at  the  foundation,  and  Christ  himself  the  chief-corner, 
where  is  the  room  for  Peter  as  the  rock?* 

od.  The  balance  of  the  passage  under  consideration  now  claims 
our  regard.  Christ  also  said  to  Peter,  "  And  I  will  give  unto  thee 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven." 

"  THE  KEYS :" 

Binding  and  Loosing, 

On  Earth  and  in  Heaven  ! 

What  a  work  this,  committed  to  a  mortal  !  Of  course,  it  related 
to  mortals — the  world,  Jewish  and  Gentile.  Both  these  branches 
of  the  human  race,  at  the  time  of  this  address  of  Christ  to  Peter, 
like  condemned  criminals,  lay  chain-bound  in  the  prison  of  their 
sins.  But  God's  mercy  had  interposed  in  their  behalf,  by  yielding 
up  the  "  soul"  of  his  eternally-begotten  Son  as  "  an  offering  for 
sin,"  ' — "  the  sin  of  the  w^orld."  "  The  keys,"  however,  were 
wanted,  on  the  one  hand,  to  unlock  the  prison  doors  of  the  captives  ; 
and  on  the  other,  to  throw  open  the  two-leaved  gate  for  the  ad- 
mission of  both  Jew  and  Oentile  into  the  spiritual  kingdom  of 
Christ. 

These  "  keys"  were  gi\-en  to  Peter.  This  work  was  assigned  to 
him.  And,  he  consummated  it,  first,  by  declaring  to  the  Jews  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  a  truth  which  had  been  hid  from  ages  and 
generations  preceding.  "  Let  all  the  house  of  Israel  know  assuredly, 
that  God  hath  made  that  Jesus  whom  ye  crucified,  both  Lord  and 
Christ."  This  annunciation  by  Peter  was  crowned  on  that  day  by 
the  conversion  to  God  of  three  thousand  of  his  brethren,  and  by 
their  admission  into  the  mystical  fold  of  Christ,  the  Christian 
Church. 

Soon  after,  it  pleased  God  to  reveal  to  this  apostle  by  a  vision, 
"  that  He  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  hut  that  in  every  nation,  he 
that  feareth   him   and   worketh   righteousness  is    accepted  with 

(1)  Isa.  53  :  10. 

*See  Roman  Catholic  Debate,  et  seq. 


120 

him."  *  At  the  same  time  it  was  revealed  to  the  Roman  centurion 
Cornelius,  that  God  had  purposes  of  mercy  in  store  for  the 
Oentiles. 

See,  now,  the  wisdom  of  God  in  all  this.  In  accordance  with 
the  Divine  plan,  Cornelius  is  commanded  to  send  men  to  Joppa, 
to  one,  who,  on  his  arrival,  would  "  tell  him  words  whereby  he  and 
all  his  house  should  be  saved^  '  Who  was  it  ?  We  answer — It  was 
"  Simon,"  called  also  "  Peter." '  Why  Peter,  in  preference  to  any 
other  ?  Because  to  him  had  been  given  "  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven"  in  behalf  as  well  of  the  Gentiles  as  of  the  Jews.  And 
having  thrown  open  one  side  of  the  gospel  gate  to  the  one,  he  pro- 
ceeds now  to  a  similar  act,  in  setting  open  the  remaining  side  in 
behalf  of  the  other.  Hence,  on  his  arrival  at  the  house  of  Cor- 
nelius, Peter  opened  his  mouth  and  declared  the  mission  of  the 
apostles  from  Christ  as  the  eye-witnesses  of  his  resurrection,  "  to 
preach  to  the  people,  and  to  testify  that  it  is  he  which  was  ordained 
of  God  to  judge  the  quick  and  dead.  It  is  then  recorded,  that, 
"  while  he  yet  spake  these  words,  the  Holy  G-host  fell  on  all  them 
which  heard  the  word."  "And  they  of  the  circumcision  which  be- 
lieved, were  astonished,  as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because  that 
on  the  Oentiles  was  poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For, 
they  heard  thetn  speak  with  tongues,  and  magnify  God.  Then  an- 
swered Peter,  Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these  (Gentiles) 
should  not  be  baptized  as  well  as  we  ?"  (the  Jews.)  "And  he  com- 
manded them  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  * 

Thus,  we  deferentiall}^  submit,  the  complete  accomplishment  of 
the  work  of  "  the  keys,  assigned  by  Christ  to  Peter.  The  two- 
leaved  gate  of  gospel  privileges  to  Jew  and  Gentile  has  never  since 
been  closed.  There  is  no  moke  use  foe  the  keys  !  Peter  has 
them  yet.  He  took  them  to  heaven  with  him  at  his  martyrdom. 
And  there  he  will  hold  and  guard  them,  till  He  who  has  the  key 
of  David,  who  opens  and  none  can  shut,  "  will  appear  the  second 
time,"  to  "  give  to  every  man  according  as  his  work  shall  be." 

4th.  The  next  passage  having  special  reference  to  this  apostle,  is 
that  recorded,  John  21  :  15-17.  Christ,  having  thrice  interro- 
gated Peter  as  to  whether  he  loved  him,  the  apostle  closes  his  last 
declaration  in  the  affirmative  by  an  appeal  to  his  master's  omnisci- 
ence :  "  Lord,  thou  knowest  all  things,  thou  knowest  that  I  love 
thee."  And  each  declaration  of  Peter's  "  love"  to  Christ  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  command  to  him,   "  Feed  my  lambs^eed  my  sheepj^ 

Our  Lord's  design  here,  as  we  shall  show,  was,  simply  to  deter- 
mine the  degree  of  Peter's  love  to  him.  This  is  manifest  from  the 
form  of  the  first  interrogation. — "  Lovest  thou  me  more  than 
these  ?"  The  question  here  is,  to  what  did  Christ  refer  as  the  an- 
tecedent to  the  word  "  these"  ?  Language  has  no  meaning,  but 
from  the  context.  Let  us  look  at  it.  During  the  interval  between 
the  second  and  third  appearance  of  Christ  to  his  disciples  after  his 

Q)  Acts  10  :  34,  35.    (2)  Acts  11  :  14.     (3)  lb.  10  :  32.     (4)  Acts  10  :  34,  39-42,  44-48. 


121 

resurrection,  they  liad  been  left  alone.  And,  thongli  that  interval 
was  short,  they  felt  themselves  destitute,  forsaken,  and  in  need. 
In  the  midst  of  their  perplexity,  Peter  proposed  a  return  to  their 
former  occupation  of  fishing,  to  which  they  all  acceded.  But  their 
fruitless  efforts  furnished  to  them  the  evidence  of  their  error,  in 
hsLving  forgotte7i  to  "  tarry  at  Jerusalem,"  till  endowed  with  power 
from  on  high.  Still  their  compassionate  Master,  meeting  them 
again  at  the  sea  of  Tiberias,  upbraids  them  not,  but  inquires, 
"  Children,  have  ye  any  meat?"  They  answered,  "No."  A  mira- 
cle supphes  their  wants.  A  repast  is  prepared.  "  Jesus  saith 
unto  them,  come  and  dine."  And,  in  verse  13,  we  read, — 
*'Ep;^;eTai  ovv  6  'leaovg  Koi  Xafifidvei  rbv  dprov,  koI  didooiv  avroig,  koI 
TO  dipdpiov  ofioicjg.  "  Jesus  then  coraeth  and  taketh  bread,  and  giveth 
them  ;  and  fish  likewise^ 

We  are  now  to  bear  in  mind,  that  this  repast  was  taken  on  the 
sea-shore,  and  in  sight  of  the  ships,  boats,  and  fishing  apparatus  of 
the  disciples.  And,  when  it  is  recollected  that  this  was,  at  least 
in  regard  to  most  of  them,  the  occupation  in  which  they  were 
formerly  engaged,  and  that  to  which  they  had  now  returned  ;  and 
that,  as  the  means  of  their  worldly  subsistence  it  ivas  their  all  : 
Our  Lord,  present  to  whose  mind  was  the  fact,  first,  of  Peter's 
having  thrice  denied  him ;  and  in  the  next  place  that  it  was  he 
who  had  drawn  the  other  disciples  from  otf  their  post  of  duty,  says 
to  him  in  reference  to  this  worldly  occupation  and  all  its  appurten- 
ances, lifKOv  'Icjva,  dyajTag  jie  tcXeIov  tovto)v  :  "  Simon,  son  of  Jonas, 
lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  V  You  once  said,  you  were  willing 
to  "  forsake  all  and  to  follow  me."  Are  you  now  willing  to  renew 
that  pledge  ? 

Now,  that  the  above  are  the  things  referred  to  by  Christ,  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fact  that,  to  apply  the  word  tovto^v,  "  these,"  to  the 
apostles  as  its  antecedent,  would  have  rendered  the  comparison 
above  exceedingly  invidious,  not  only  ; — and  especially  when  it  is 
remembered  that  twice  in  this  same  chapter,  John  is  called  "the 
beloved  disciple,"  vv.  7  and  20  ; — but,  had  Jesus  meant  to  refer  to 
them,  he  would  have  added  to  the  word  rovroyv,  "  Lovest  thou  me 
more  than  these"  discipAes  love  me  ?  No  one,  therefore,  who  has 
studied  the  benignity  of  the  Savior's  character,  can  suppose  him  to 
have  intended  so  invidious  a  comparison. 

In  regard  to  Christ's  command  to  Peter,  "/eecZ  my  lamhs;''^  '•'•feed 
my  sheep  " ;  it  must  suffice  for  the  present  that  we  simply  remark, 
that  the  terms  employed  denote  the  spiritual  members  of  his  body, 
as  his  flock.*     Thus  understood,  the  incident  of  the  repast  in  the 

*  Romanists  interpret  "  lambs,'^  in  this  passage,  to  denote  the  laity,  and  "  slieep,''^  the 
BISHOPS  :  and  hence  argue,  that  Peter  exercised  a  primacy  and  supremacy  over  both 
laity  and  clergy.  And  so,  the  reading  of  the  Vulgate ;  1  Peter,  5:3,  "  Be  not  lords 
over  the  clergy."  But,  besides  the  fact  that  the  plural,  "lords,"  in  this  passage,  is  of 
itself  fatal  to  the  idea  of  one  supreme  head,  the  original  word,  i:h)p:ii,  which  they  trans- 
Jate  clergy,  '"  occurs  twelve  times  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  nine  of  these  it  is  trans- 
lated lot.     In  Acts  26  :  18,  and  in  Colossians  1  :  12,  it  is  translated  inheritance,  and  in 


122 

above  narrative,  and  the  use  to  wliicLi  it  was  applied,  is  obvious : 
as  though  Christ  had  said,  '  as  I  have  fed  you,  so  feed  my  /cA^/pof, 
"  sheepy  '  That  this  was  tlie  sense  in  which  Peter  understood  the 
above  command,  is  evident  from  his  notable  address  to  those  who 
were  discharging  the  functions  of  the  ministry  : — the  elders,  Trpea- 
fivTEpoc,  which  are  among  j^ou  I  exhort,  who  am  also  an  elder,  ngea- 
(3vTepo^ — -feed  thejloclc  of  God,  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  over- 
sight thereof,"  *  etc.  How  beautifully  simple  and  fraternal  this 
address  !  lie  modestly  withdraws  from  the  view  the  insignia  of 
the  apostolic  office  which  he  was  entitled  to  wear ;  and  contenting 
himself  with  the  same  title,  "  elder,"  which  he  applies  to  them,  he 
illustrates  and  urges  their  duty  by  an  allusion  to  the  imstoral  re- 
lation of  a  shepherd  to  his  flock,  common  alike,  we  observe,  to  the 
ministry  of  the  old  Law  and  the  new  ;  and  that,  to  the  intent  that 
they  might  thereby  "  take  heed  to  themselves  and  to  all  the  fioch 
over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers,  to  feed  the 
CJiurcli  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with  his  own  blood." " 

5th.  In  addition  to  the  above,  there  are  several  other  incidents 
connected  with  this  ajDostle's  official  relation  to  his  compeers  and  to 
the  Church,  further  confirmatory  of  the  fact  that  he  neither  held  a 
superiority  over  them  nor  supremacy  in  it. 

Take  for  the  first,  the  convocation  of  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem,  on 
the  subject  of  the  report  made  to  them  by  Philip  the  deacon, 
"  that  Samaria  had  received  the  word  of  God."  Their  very  first 
action  in  the  premises  was  to  appoint  Peter  as  a  legate,  in  com- 
pany with  John,  to  confer  upon  those  of  them  who  believed,  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,^  an  appointment  obviously  at  variance 
with  the  idea  of  that  apostle's  oflicial  superiority  over  his  brethren, 
or  of  primacy  in  the  Church. 

(2.)  Equally  at  variance  with  such  an  idea,  is  the  conduct  of  this 
apostle,  when  the  brethren  of  the  circumcision  rose  up  against  him 
&7i  tnasse,,  for  having  gone  in  to  men  uncircumcised,  and  eating  with 
them.  How  did  he  meet  this  accusation  ?  Was  it  by  claiming  in 
his  behalf  that  he  was  Christ's  vicar — the  chief  of  the  apostles — 
the  head  of  the  Church,  etc.  ?  So  far  from  it,  having  simply  related 
the  fact  that  God  through  him  had  opened  the  door  of  faith  to  the 
Gentiles,  he  rests  the  wbole  of  his  defense  on  the  plea,  ^'- what  was 
7,  that  I  could  withstand  Godf  AVith  this  appeal,  they  were 
satisfied. 

(3.)  So,  with  the  position  and  conduct  of  this  apostle  at  the  con- 

(I)  1  Pet.  6  :  1-4.  (2)  Acts  20  :  28.  (3)  Acts  8  :  14-17.  (4)  Acts  12  : 1-18. 
the  passage  before  us,  it  may  be  either  lot,  heritage,  or  inheritance."  so  that  it  may  read, 
"  not  as  lords  over  the  heritage,  lot,  or  people  of  the  Lord.''  The  absurdity  of  the  Rom- 
ish rendering  will  appear  from  the  following  examples  :  As  well  might  the  Vulgate 
have  said  to  Simon  Magus,  "thou  hast  neither  part  nor  clergy  in  this  matter:"  or,  in 
Col.  ]  :  12,  "  he  has  fitted  us  to  partake  in  the  clergy  of  the  saints."  '•  In  both  cases,  the 
word  is  the  same  in  the  original.  These  show  by  what  a  stretch  of  power  and  arbi- 
trary dominion  over  words,  these  critics  would  bring  the  clergy  or  Christian  ministry 
under  the  bishop  of  Rome !"      (Roman  Catholic  Debate,  pp.  96,  97.) 


123 

vocation  of  tlie  apostles  and  elders  at  Jerusalem,  on  the  subject  of 
the  dispute  which  arose  about  circumcision.  That  convocation  was 
called,  not  by  Peter,  but  by  tioo  or  three  of  the  churches.  During 
the  discussions  which  this  question  elicited,  in  common  with  Paul 
and  Barnabas,  Peter  took  his  stand  on  the  floor,  True,  he  spoke 
first,  as  it  was  always  his  custom  to  do.  But,  so  far  from  dictating 
the  course  to  be  pursued,  the  apostle  James,  having  heard  their 
several  relations  of  what  God  had  wrought  through  their  instru- 
mentality among  the  Gentiles,  arose  and  said:  ^^M.Y  sentence  is, 
that  we  ought  to  write  so  and  so  to  the  Gentiles.  And,  in  that 
sentence,  they  all — Peter  with  the  rest,  acquiesced.  The  letter 
sent  to  the  Gentiles,  accordingly,  commences  thus :  "It  seemed 
good  unto  us,"  etc. ;  that  is,  "  the  apostles  and  elders.'"  To  the 
same  end,  we  refer, 

4.  To  the  dispute  hetween  Paul  and  Peter ^  on  a  certain  question 
of  expediency.  "For,  before  certain  persons,  came  from  James, 
Peter  did  eat  with  the  Gentiles  ;  but  when  they  came,  he  withdrew 
and  separated  from  them  for  fear  of  the  Jews.  And  the  other 
Jews  dissembled  likewise  with  him,  insomuch  that  Barnabas  was 
carried  away  mth  their  dissimulation.'"  Peter,  therefore,  having 
come  down  to  Autioch,  Paul  felt  it  his  duty  to  rehuke  him  !  So 
"  he  withstood  him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be  blamed :" 
and  he  demanded  of  him  in  the  presence  of  them  all,  "  why  do 
you  compel  the  Gentiles  to  live  as  do  the  Jews  ?"  A  rebuke,  one 
would  suppose,  involving  the  highest  presumption  and  arrogance 
on  the  part  of  Paul,  if  iriferior  in  apostolic  functions  to  Peter. 
Indeed,  as  the  context  shows,  this  rebuke  was  inflicted  on  Peter 
purely  as  a  matter  of  self-defense.  Some  of  the  Galatians,  it  ap- 
pears, had  considered  Paul  as  inferior  to  those  whom  they  had 
been  in  the  habit  of  calling  "  pillars,"  as  Peter,  and  James,  and' 
John.  His  design  therefore  was  to  show  them,  that,  aside  from 
their  having  been  the  personal  companions  of  Christ  and  eye-wit- 
nesses of  his  resurrection,  he  was  not  behind  the  chief  est  of  them.^ 
Finally, 

(5.)  In  the  last  will  and  testament  of  this  apostle  (Peter)  as  set 
forth  in  his  two  epistles,  he  calls  himself,  not  the  apostle,  but,  "  an 
apostle."*  He  also  styles  himself  a /dZ/M^)-"  elder  and  witness  of  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,"  etc.^  And  he  directs  that  his  brethren 
should,  "  after  his  decease,  be  mindful  of  us  the  apostles  of  our 
Lord  and  Savior.""  Thus  disclaiming,  in  the  most  positive  terms, 
and  under  the  most  solemn  circumstances,  all  pretenses  to  superior- 
ity over  his  compeers,  or  of  primacy  in  the  Church. 

(1)  Acts  15  :  1-21.  (-2)031.2:11-14.  (3)  See  Gal.  1.  (4)  1  Pet.  1  :  1  ;  2  Pet.  1  :  1.  (5)  1  Pet.  6  :  L 
(6)  2  Pet.  1  :  lo  ;  3  :  2. 


124 


SECTION  vn. 

The  Number  of  the  Apostles. — Proof  that  there  were  "Twelve"  only. — Argued,  Ist. 
from  the  Declared  Perpetual  Relation  of  "  the  Twelve"  to  Christ.  Luke  22  : 
28-30. — 2d.  From  the  Name,  A7r(5<7roXoj — examination  of  the  Titles  npcaffvTcpos, 
iniaxoirtSfj  oiiiovoi^  rroinnv,  SiSd<TK<iXoi,  irpo(p'JTrii ,  ayycKoi. —  (1.)  The  Name  an6i7To\o!  al- 
leged in  behalf  of  some  to  whom  it  is  never  given — Andronicus  and  Junia,  Apol- 
los,  Silas  or  Silvanus,  Titus,  Timothy,  the  Seven  Apocalyptic  Angels. —  (2.)  Those 
to  whom  the  name  is  given,  who  were  not  of  "  the  Twelve." — Proof  that  it  is  ap- 
plied to  them  in  a  different  sense.  Barnabas,  Epaphroditus,  the  two  brethren  who 
accompanied  Titus  to  Corinth,  Matthias  and  Paul. 

Having  thus  considered  the  subject  of  the  New  Testament 
ApostoHcity  in  connection  with  the  questions  of  the  marks  or 
signs  by  which  it  was  to  be  known ;  and,  of  the  uniformity  or 
equaUty  of  their  official  functions ;  we  pass  to  examine  another  of 
equal  interest,  and  of  vital  consequence,  in  a  scriptural  view,  to 
the  matter  before  us.     It  relates  to, 

V.  The  NuaiBEE  of  the  New  Testament  Apostles.  IIoio  many 
were  there  ?  Besides  "  the  eleven,"  the  name  and  functions — the 
OFFICE — apostolic,  is  alleged  in  behalf  of  Matthias,  Paul,  Barnabas, 
Andronicus,  Junia,  Apollos,  Timothy,  Titus,  and  certain  brethren 
who  accompanied  him  to  Corinth,  Epaphroditus,  Silas,  and  the  An- 
gels of  the  seven  Asiatic  churches. 

1st.  There  is,  however,  we  observe,  one  New  Testament,  diffi- 
culty to  encounter,  in  admitting  all  the  above  named  personages 
to  that  honor.  We  allude  to  \\iq.  jyt'ornised  reward  made  by  Christ 
to  "  THE  TWELVE,"  a  little  prior  to  his  Passion  on  the  Cross.  Inas- 
much as  their  work  in  the  founding  and  settlement  of  that  spirit- 
ual empire  which  "  is  not  of  this  world,"  had  for  its  ulterior  end 
the  subjugation  of  a  revolted  world  to  the  dominion  of  Christ ; 
now  that  they  had  "  continued  with  him  in  his  temptations,"  our 
blessed  Lord  says  to  them,  "  /  aj^point  unto  you  a  kingdom^  as 
Ttiy  Father  hath  ajpjwinted  me  y  that  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my 
table  in  my  kingdom^  and  sit  on  thrones^  judging  the  twelve 
TEiEES  OF  Israel.'" 

Now,  the  Savior  here  evidently  speaks  of  "  the  twelve,"  both  in 
their  then  existing  relation  to  himself,  and  in  their  prospective  re- 
lation to  the  future  church  ;  and,  he  unites  them  together :  they 
are  "the  twelve"  whom  he  bad  chosen  and  commissioned,  and  who 
are  privileged  with  daily  communion  with  himself.  If  one  of 
them  becomes  a  traitor  and  goes  to  his  own  place,  the  vacancy 
must  be  filled  by  another,  so  that  there  may  be  still  "  twelve 
APOSTLES  of  the  Lamb."     We  hence  see,  that  the  associated  body 

(1)  Luke  22  :  2a-.?0. 


125 

here  consists  of  the  same  number  as  composed  the  fathers  of  the 
Jewish  tribes — twelve  patriarchs — twelve  apostles. 

Nor  does  the  difficulty  end  at  this  point.  For,  the  same  "  twelve 
apostles"  are  connected  together  when  the  Savior  opens  the  future, 
as  when  he  speaks  of  the  present.  Does  he  give  them  the  per- 
spective of  his  own  and  of  their  future  glory  ?  (as  on  the  mount 
of  transfiguration) — it  is  glory  which  "  the  twelve"  are  to  share  in 
common.  "  And  Jesus  said  unto  them,  Verily  I  say  unto  you, 
that  ye  which  have  followed  me  in  the  regeneration,  when  the  Son 
of  man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon 
TWELVE  THRONES,  judging  the  TWELVE  TKiBES  of  Israel."  Again. 
Does  he,  after  his  ascension,  give  to  one  of  their  number  a  revela- 
tion of  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  ?  He  still  presents  them  as  eter- 
nally and  immutably  united  together.  "  And  the  wall  of  the  city 
had  TWELVE  FOUNDATIONS,  and  in  them  the  names  of  the  twelve 
APOSTLES  of  the  Lamb."' 

2d.  How,  now,  are  these  statements  in  regard  to  "  the  twelve" 
apostles,  to  be  made  to  harmonize  mth  the  alleged  claims  in  be- 
half of  the  others  f  It  is  clear,  that  if  they  were  all  apostles  in 
the  same  sense,  there  should  have  been  several  scores,  instead  of 
"twelve"  foundations  in  "  the  wall"  of  the  Jerusalem  "  city,"  with 
"  the  names"  of  each  inscribed  thereon.  Such  a  supposition,  how- 
ever, militates  against  the  infallibility  of  the  inspired  records,  at 
the  very  thought  of  which  the  pious  mind  revolts.  That  we  are 
not,  however,  reduced  to  so  sad  an  alternative,  we  remark,  that, 
even  admitting — what  we  concede — that  the  name  d-oaroXog, 
apostle,  is  used  in  reference  to  some,  at  least,  of  the  persons  men- 
tioned above,  it  does  not  follow  that  they  were  apostles  in  the 
same  sense  as  were  "  the  eleven."*  The  New  Testament  writers 
not  unfrequently  employ  official  names  or  titles  with  great  latitude 
of  signification.  As  for  example:  the  two  following  names, 
liQEOtiireQoq,  Elder  or  Presbyter^  and  E-n-m/fOTro^-,  Bishop^  are  used 
interchangeably  to  denote  the  same  office.^  And  again,  these  two 
names,  with  several  others,  and  especially  the  following,  namely, 
^laKovog,  npe(7/3vTepof ,  and  AiddoKaXog^  "  the  three  which  occur  most 
frequently  in  application  to  ecclesiastical  office,  have  a  threefold 
usage  perfectly  distinguishable."  In  illustration  of  our  meaning, 
take  the  title, 

1.  npe(7/3t'repoc.  It  is  used  (1.)  to  signify  older,  as  an  adjective 
in  the  comparative  degree  f  (2.)  an  old  man  in  the  proper  sense  \* 
(3.)  a  Jewish  magistrate ;'  and  (4.)  an  officer  of  the  Christian 
Church.* 

2.  EnioKOTTog.     A  name  which  belongs  and  is  applied  pre-emi- 

(l)  Rev.  21  :  14.  (2)  Titus  1  :  5,  7  ;  Acts  20  :  17,  28.  (3)  Luke  15  :  25  ;  John  8  :  9.  (4)  1  Tim.  5  : 
I.  (5)  Matt.  21  :  23  ;  Mark  15  :  1  ;  Luke  7:3;  Acts  4  :  8,  etc.  (6)  Acts  13  :  2  ;  20  :  17  ;  1  Tim.  5  : 
19  ;  Titus  1:5;  Jas.  5:14;  1  Pet.  5  :  5. 

♦  The  reader  will  henceforward  bear  in  mind  the  vacancy  created  in  the  apostolic 
college  by  the  fall  and  death  of  Iscariot. 


126 

nently  (1.)  to  Christ  as  the  spiritual  Head  and  Shepherd  of  his  re- 
deemed people  ;'  (2.)  subordiuately,  to  an  officer  of  the  Christian 
Church.' 

3.  IlotiiTjv,  denotes,  (1.)  a  literal  shepherd  \^  (2.)  a  spiritual  pas- 
tor, as  Christ;^  and  also  (3.)  his  ministers.* 

4.  AuiKovog,  is  applied  (1.)  to  a  domestic ;"  (2.)  to  a  minister  or 
agent  either  of  good  or  evil ;'  (3.)  to  a  civil  magistrate  ;"  (4.)  to  a 
minister  of  the  old  dispensation ;"  (5.)  to  the  Christian  ministry  of 
all  ranks  ;'"  (6.)  to  deacons  in  particular." 

6.  AiddoKaXog,  means  (1.)  a  teacher  generally,  as  opposed  to  a 
learner  ;'*  (2.)  the  religious  founder  of  a  school  or  sect ;"  (3.)  an 
official  teacher  in  the  Church." 

6,  UQOfprj-rj^.  (1.)  A  heathen  poet,  regarded  as  inspired ;"  (2.) 
a  prophet  of  the  old  disjDensation ;'"  (3.)  an  inspired  Christian 
teacher." 

7.  AyyeXog.  (1.)  A  human  messenger ;"  (2.)  a  spirit,  good"  or 
bad  f  (3.)  an  ecclesiastical  superior.^' 

We  hence  argue  in  regard  to  the  name  AnoaroXog,  that  if  it 
"  has  one  invariable  meaning  in  the  New  Testament,  it  is  contrary, 
not  only  to  what  might  have  been  expected  from  the  origin  and 
previous  use  of  the  term,  but  also  to  the  analogy  of  the  other 
terms  used  in  the  New  Testament  to  designate  ecclesiastical  offices. 
The  only  probable  supposition  a  priori  is,  that  it  would  have  the 
same  variety  of  meaning  as  the  rest."*  The  names  or  titles, 
Aidicovog,  UpeafivTepog,  and  AiddonaXog,  as  may  be  seen  by  referring 
to  4,  1  and  5,  "  are  all  used  in  a  popular  sense,  in  a  general  reli- 
gious sense,  and  in  a  specific  ecclesiastical  sense."  So,  we  affirm,  of 
the  name  AnooroXog.  "The  three  corresponding  senses"  are, 
"  (1.)  a  messenger  of  any  kind  ;'-  (2.)  a  religious  messenger  or  mis- 
sionary ;'^  (3.)  an  apostle,  in  the  strict  official  sense,"^''f  as  set  forth 
under  the  marks  or  signs  of  "the  twelve,"  in  pages  108  and  114 
inclusive. 

Now,  if  it  can  be  shown,  first,  that,  of  several  of  those  who,  in 
addition  to  "  the  eleven,"  are  alleged  to  have  been  apostles,  that 
name  is  never  given  to  them  in  the  New  Testament ;  and,  second, 
that,  of  those  who  confessedly  bore  the  name,  only  one  of  the 
number  possessed  the  marks  or  signs  peculiar  to  the  apostolicity 
of  "  the  eleven ;"  we  shall  have  fully  vindicated  the  statements  as 

(1)  1  Pet.  2  :  25.  (2)  Acts  20  :  28  ;  Philip.  1  :  1  ;  1  Tim.  3:2;  Tit.  1  :  7.  (3)  Matt.  25  :  32  :  Luke  2 
8,  15,  18,  20.  (4)  Matt.  26  :  31  ;  John  10  :  2,  11,  12,  14,  16  ;  Hcb.  13  :  20  ;  1  Pet.  2  :  25.  (5)  Eph.  4 
11.  (6)  Matt.  20  :  26  ;  22  :  13  ;  23  :  11  ;  John  2  :  5,  9.  (7)  Gal.  2  :  17 ;  2  Cor.  11  :  1.5.  (8)  Rom  13 
4.  (9)  Rom.  14  :  8.  (10)  2  Cor.  3:6;  11  :  23  ;  F.ph.  3  :  7  ;  6  :  21  ;  Col.  1  :  7.  23,  25  ;  4  :  7  ;  1  Thes.s 
3  :  2  ;  1  Tim.  4  :  6.  (U)  Philip.l  :  1  ;  1  Tim.  3  :  8,  12.  (12)  Matt.  10  :  25  ;  Rom.  2  :  20.  (13)  Luke2 
46  ;  John  3:2;  Heb.  5  :  12  ;  Jas.  3  :  1,  comp.  with  Matt.  9  :  II  ;  7  :  24  ;  Luke  18  :  18.  (14)  Acts  13 
1  ;  1  Cor.  12:28,  29;  Eph.  4  :  11  ;  1  Tim.  2:7:2  Tim.  1  :  11  ;  4  :  .3.  (1.5)  Titus  1  :  12.  (16)  Matt.  1 
22  ;  8  :  17,  etc.  (17)  Acts  13  :  1  ;  1  Cor.  12  :  28.  29  ;  14  :  29,  32,  37 ;  Eph.  4:11.  (18)  Luke  9  :  52 
(19)  Matt.  1  :  20.  (20)  Matt.  25  :  41  ;  2  Cor.  12  :  7.  (21)  Rev  1  :  20  ;  2  :  1,  8,  12,  18  ;  3:1,  5,  7,  14. 
(22)  Consult  John  13  :  16.  "Sent,"  anoaroUs.  (23)  Rom.  11  :  13  ;  1  Tim.  2  :  7  ;  2  Tim.  1:11.  (24) 
Luke  6  :  13. 

*  See  more  fully  on  this  subject,  the  Biblical  Repertory  and  Princeton  Review,  Art., 
"The  Apostleship  a  Temporary  Office,"  July,  1849.     pp.  367-369. 
t  lb.  p.  369. 


127 

above  given  by  the  inspired  records  respecting  "  tlie  twelve  apoS' 
tics  of  the  Lamh^''  against  the  charge  of  incongruity,  such  as  is  in- 
evitable on  the  hypothesis  of  an  addition  to  their  number. 

We  are  here  compelled  to  venture  upon  a  somewhat  liberal  in- 
dulgence from  the  reader,  in  presenting  a  scriptural  view  of  the 
cases  here  involved.  Our  apology  is,  a  deep  conviction,  that  in  no 
other  way  can  it  be  determined  who  are  the  true,  from  those  who 
are  "  false  apostles.'"  In  other  words,  whether  the  apostolicity  of 
"  the  twelve"  as  appointed  by  Christ  himself,  were  an  institution 
special,  extraordinary,  and  of  limited  or  temporary  duration — an  in- 
stitution which  loas  to  terminate  with  the  completion  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament age^  or,  whether  it  was  to  be  perpetuated  to  the  close  of  time. 

(1.)  Of  those  then  which  fall  under  the  first  class  in  the  above 
category — those  to  whom  the  name  K-nooroXog  is  never  given,  we 
think  the  evidence  will  be  found  clear  in  reference  to  the  following, 
namely,  Andronicus  and  Junia,  Apollos,  Silas,  Titus,  Timothy, 
and  tlie  seven  Asiatic  angels. 

[1.]  Andronicus  and  Junta.  The  passage  on  which  rests  the 
claim  of  their  apostolicity,  is  the  following  : — "  Salute  Andronicus 
and  Junia,  my  kinsmen  and  my  fellow-prisoners,  who  are  of  note 
among  the  apostles,^''  etc.  *  St.  Paul,  though  at  first  looked  upon 
with  great  suspicion  by  the  original  college  of  apostles  as  well  as 
others  ; '  yet,  having  fvnsiWj  proved  his  apostleship  by  the  "  signs 
and  wonders"  which  he  wrought, "  was  held  in  high  repute  by 
them.  Now,  Andronicus  and  Junia  were  not  only  his  "  kinsmen," 
but  had  become  his  companions,  and  had  even  stood  by  him  in 
his  greatest  perils;  yea,  had  even  become  sharers  with  him 
in  his  prison  and  his  chains.  And  this  their  devotion  to  him 
in  his  sufferings,  had  rendered  them  "  of  note  among  the  apostles," 
imaT]^oi  ev  rolg  dnoaroXotg — that  is,  they  were  "  highly  esteemed  among 
(or  by)  the  ajyostles^  And,  doubtless,  there  were  others  "  of  note" 
among  them,  for  example,  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  Paul's  "helpers 
in  Christ  Jesus,"  and  who  "  had  laid  down  their  very  necks"  for 
his  sake.  ^  If,  then,  the  former  were  made  apostles  on  this  ac- 
count, why  not  the  latter  ?  On  this  principle  there  would  be  added 
to  that  holy  band  the  apostle-ess  Pkiscilla  ! 

[2.]  Apollos.  The  passage  relating  to  him  in  this  connection  is 
1  Cor.  4:6.  "  And  these  things,  brethren,"  says  Paul,  "  I  have 
in  a  figure  transferred  to  myself  and  to  Apollos  for  your  sakes." 
What  "things"?  The  Corinthian  Church  had  become  inflated 
with  spiritual  pride  ;  and  this  had  engendered  among  them  "  envy- 
ing, and  strife,  and  divisions."  One  said,  "  I  am  of  Paul  and 
another,  I  am  of  Apollos,"  **  etc.  Apollos  had  watered,  with  his 
pastoral  eloquence, ''  the  seed  planted  by  apostolic  hands.     This 

(1)  2  Cor.  11  :  13.     (2)  Rom.  16  :  7.    (3)  Acts  9  :  27  ;  sec  also  vv.  13,  26.     (4)  Hfcb.  2  :  4.     (5)  Rom. 
16  :  4.     (G)  1  Cor.  3  :  1^.    (7)  Acts  18  :  24  j  see  1  Cor.  1  :  6. 


128 

circumstance  had  led  some  to  exalt  the  tongue  of  the  waterer  above 
the  liand  o^  Xho,  planter.  But,  so  far  from  feeling  aggrieved  toward 
them  or  envious  toward  Apollos,  on  this  account,  though  conscious 
of  his  official  superiority  as  an  apostle,  he  is  willing  for  their  sakes 
not  only  to  stand  on  a  level  with  him,  and  so  to  be  accounted 
simply  as  "ministers — laborers  together  with  God;"  '  but  even  to 
think  and  to  have  them  think,  "that  God  had  set  forth"  himself 
and  his  apostolic  compeers  "  last,  as  it  were  appointed  to  death,"  * 
if  it  would  but  restore  union  among  them.  And  he  therefore  de- 
termined, with  Apollos,  to  set  before  them  "  in  a  figure,''^  such  an 
exemplification  of  practical  humility,  as  "  that  they  might  learn 
from  them  not  to  think  of  me?i,"  whether  apostles  or  others, 
"above  that  which  is  written,"  that  is,  to  "esteem  them  very 
highly  for  their  work's  sake," '  whether  that  Avork  consisted  of 
planting  or  watering,  "  that  no  one  of  them  be  puffed  up  for  one 
against  another."  *     Did  this  make  Apollos  an  apostle  ? 

[3.]  Silas  or  Silvanus,  Paul's  chosen  companion  after  his  sepa- 
ration from  Barnabas.  ^  Paul  unites  his  name  with  that  of  Timo- 
thy, in  the  opening  of  his  two  epistles  to  the  Thessalonians.  "  Paul, 
and  Silvanus,  and  Timotheus,  unto  the  Church  of  the  Thessalo- 
nians," etc.  This  circumstance,  taken  in  connection  with  verse  6 
of  the  2d  chapter  of  the  first  epistle, — "  nor  of  men  sought  we 
glory,  neither  of  you,  nor  yet  of  others,  when  tve  might  have  been 
burdensome,  as  the  apostles  of  Christ," — it  is  alleged  assigns  to  each 
the  ofiice  apostolic.  We  are,  however,  to  bear  in  mind  in  the  first 
place,  that,  in  the  peroration  of  these  epistles,  neither  Silas  nor 
Timothy  are  called  apostles.  Then,  in  the  next  place,  the  word 
dnoGToXoc^  1  Thess.  2  :  6,  is  separated  from  the  opening  of  the  epis- 
tle by  fourteen  intervening  verses ;  which  fact,  taken  in  connection 
with  Paul's  frequent  usage,  after  such  a  joint  address,  of  the  Jirst 
person  singular^  proves  that  there  is  no  necessary  relation  between 
it  and  the  names  of  Silas  and  Timothy.  Indeed,  as  if  to  guard 
against  such  a  construction,  he  says,  near  the  conclusion  of  this 
very  passage,  "  Wherefore  we  would  have  come  unto  you,  even  / 
Paul,  once  and  again," — (1  Thess.  1  :  18.)  Though  Paul  could 
not,  in  strict  propriety  of  speech,  apply  the  plural  d-noaroXoL  to  him- 
self, yet  "  by  a  particle  denoting  resemblance  or  comparison,  he 
could  assert  his  right  to  do  a  thing  "  as  the  apostles  of  Christ." 
In  conclusion  on  this  subject  we  remark,  that  the  hypothesis  of 
making  apostles  by  the  mere  mention  of  other  names  with  that  of 
Paul  in  the  opening  of  his  epistles,  would  make  apostles  of  some 
whom  its  advocates  would  be  slow  to  admit  as  such.  Take,  for 
example,  the  following.  In  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  Paul  hav- 
ing spoken  of  himself  as  "  an  apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man, 
but  by  Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father,"  etc.  he  adds,  "  And  all 

(1)  1  Cor.  3  :  5,  9.     (2)  lb.  4  :  6,  7,  and  v.  9.     (3)  1  Thess.  0  :  13.     (4)1  Cor.  4: 6.     (5)  Acts  15  :  37-10. 


129 

the  brethren  which  are  with  me,  unto  the  Churches  of  Galatia."  '  The 
"  brethren"  here  mentioned  were  the  brethren  of  Antioch ;  but 
that  all  these  *'  brethren"  were  apostles  no  one  pretends  :  that  any 
one  of  them  was  such,  no  one  can  prove. 

[•!.]  Titus.  The  passage  from  which  it  is  inferred  that  Titus  was 
an  apostle,  is  the  following.  "  Whether  do  any  inquire  of  Titus, 
he  is  my  partner  and  fellow-helper  concerning  you :  or  our  breth- 
thren  be  inquired  of,  they  are  the  messengers  of  the  churches 
and  the  glory  of  Christ."  *  It  will  be  seen,  however,  that  this  pas- 
sage is  fully  explained  by  a  comparison  of  1  Cor.  16:3,  "  And 
when  I  come,  whomsoever  ye  shall  approve  by  your  letters,  th&m 
will  I  send  to  bring  your  liberality  to  Jerusalem ;"  with  2  Cor. 
8  :  19,  "  who  was  also  chosen  of  the  churches  to  travel  with  us  in 
this  grace."  "  The  brethren^''  then,  and  they  only^  were  the  mes- 
sengers, aTTOCTTo/loi,  sent  by  "  the  churches."  Titus  was  only 
sent  in  company  with  them,  by  the  apostle.  Titus  is  never  called 
an  apostle. 

[.5.]   Timothy.     As  seen  above,  the  name  of  Timothy  occurs  in 

1  Thess.  1:1,  thus :  "  Paul and  Timotheus,  unto  the  Church  of 

the  Thessalonians,"  etc.  And  in  the  2d  chapter,  v.  6,  thus :  "  We 
might  have  been  burdensome  as  the  ajyostles  of  Christ."  Is  it  not 
evident,  then,  that  Paul  here  associates  Timothy  with  himself  as 
an  apostle  ?  Let  us  see.  In  the  2d  verse  of  chap.  2,  the  apostle, 
adopting  the  plural  form  of  speech,  speaks  of  himself  thus :  "  We 
had  suffered  before,  and  were  -shamefully  entreated,  as  ye  know,  at 
Philippi,"  etc.  But,  Timothy  was  not  with  the  apostles  at  this 
time,  and  hence  could  not  have  been  of  the  number  referred  to  as 
partakers  with  him  of  his  sufferings  there.  Then  also,  in  addition 
to  this:  The  First  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Thessalonians  was  written, 
Macknight  says,  as  early  as  A.D.  51.  None  place  its  chronology  later 
than  A.D.  54 :  whereas  his  epistles  to  Timothy  were  not  written, 
the  first  till  A.D.  56,  and  the  second  till  a.d.  61.  Some  place  them  as 
late  as  a.d.  Qb  or  QQ.  But,  in  neither  of  these  epistles,  though  they 
bear  his  name,  and  though  written  expressly  to  instruct  him  in  the 
powers  he  was  to  exercise  and  the  duties  he  was  to  discharge,  is  he 
called  an  apostle.  We  ask,  therefore.  Had  the  apostle  Paul,  in 
writing  to  him,  intended  to  include  Timothy  with  himself  by  the 
use  of  the  plural  "  we"  and  "  apostles"  in  1  Thess.  1  :  1  and  2  r  6, 
how  is  the  above  omission  to  address  him  as  such  in  the  two  epis- 
tles which  bear  his  name,  to  be  accounted  for  ?  What  places  this 
matter  in  regard  to  Timothy,  however,  beyond  the  reach  of  con- 
troversy, is  the  fact,  that  in  several  instances  where  Paul  associates 
him  with  himself,  he  is  careful  to  call  him  by  another  name. 
There  are  two  instances  of  this,  both  of  which  are  so  marked,  as  to 
forbid  the  supposition  that  they  could  have  occurred  otherwise 

(1)  Gal.  1  : 1-3.  (2)  2  Cor.  8  :  23. 

9 


130 

tlian  by  design.  "  Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ  by  the  will  of 
God,  and  Timothy  our  brother.''^ '  Precisely  the  same  form  of  ex- 
pression occurs  in  Col.  1:1." 

[6.]  The  seven  apocalyptic  ^■''angels^''  or  "  stars*''  of  the  seven  Asi- 
atic Churches.  These  two  names,  "  stars"  and  "  angels,"  are  evi- 
dently used  symbolically.  And,  occurring,  as  they  do,  in  immediate 
connection  with  "  the  seven  candlesticks,"  as  the  emblems  of  "the 
seven  Churches,"'  they  are  intended  to  denote  (in  harmony  with 
the  poetical  and  figurative  phraseology  of  the  book  throughout)  the 
ministry  of  the  Church,  not  singly  or  individually,  but  collectively, 
without  discrimination  either  of  official  rank  or  of  character.  For, 
as  one  "  star"  or  "  angel  " — ayyeXog  F.KKXrjaiag  [angel  of  the 
ChurGh\  is  appropriated  to  one  "  Church,"  as  one  candle  is  to  one 
"candlestick;"  it  follows,  from  the  nature  of  the  comparison,  that 
as  one  candle  is  the  full  complement  of  light  for  one  candlestick, 
so  one  star  is  the  full  complement  of  light  for  one  Church.  But 
the  light  which  shone  in  these  churches  did  not  emanate  from  any 
individual ;  it  emanated  from  a  number  of  individuals  ;  from  the 
collective  hody  of  the  ministers  of  religion.  Therefore,  the  "star," 
which  expresses  the  whole  light  in  one  of  these  churches,  is  a 
symbol,  not  of  a  single  minister,  but  of  her  ministry  collectively P 
Hence,  in  correspondence  with  this  view,  is  the  use  to  which  the 
term  "  angel"  is  elsewhere  appropriated  in  this  book.  For  exam- 
ple :  "  I  saw  another  angel  (in  the  singular)  fly  in  the  midst  of 
heaven,  having  the  everlasting  Gospel  to  jDreach  to  them  that  dwell 
on  the  earth,  and  to  every  nation,  and  kindred,  and  tongue,  and 
people."^  But,  "  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  no  single  man"  can 
dispense  the  Gospel  through  the  whole  Christian  Church,  as  de- 
noted in  this  passage  by  the  term  "  heaven."  It  follows,  that  "the 
angel"  mentioned  in  the  text  is,  and  must  of  necessity  be,  the  sym- 
bol of  the  ministry  collectively.  And,  if  further  confirmation  of 
this  point  were  necessary,  one  would  suppose  it  sufficient  that  the 
angel  of  the  Church  in  Smyrna  is  addressed  by  the  Kedeemer  "  in 
the  singular  and  plural  number,  indifferently,"  "  I  know  thy 
works,  and  tribulation,  and  poverty,  but  thof  art  rich.  Fear 
none  of  those  things  which  thou  shalt  sufifer.  Behold,  the  devil 
will  cast  some  of  YOU  into  prison,  that  YE  may  be  tried ;  and 
YE  shall  have  tribulation  ten  days  :  be  thou  faithful  unto  death, 
and  I  will  give  thee  a  crown  of  life."* 

But,  the  name  a-rToaroXog,  as  applied  to  "the  twelve,"  is  no 
where  employed,  either  in  the  symbolic  form,  or  to  express  the 
sense  here  denoted  by  the  term  dyye?.oc,  nor  are  the  latter  any 
where  called  apostles. 

2.  We  proceed  now  to  a  consideration  of  the  remainder  of  the 
cases  added  to  "  the  eleven,"  as  above,  namely,  Barnabas,  Epa- 

(1)   1  Cor.  1:1.     (3)  Rev.  1  :  20.     '3)  Rev.  16:6.     C4)  Rev.  2  :  8-10. 


181 

phroditus,  the  brethren  Avho  accompanied  Titus,  with  Matthias, 
and  Paul. 

To  each  of  these,  then,  it  is  conceded  that  the  name — dTroaroAof, 
is  given.  There  is,  however,  a  question  of  vital  importance  con- 
nected with  this  concession.  It  is  this.  Does  the  name  in  each 
case  necessarily  indicate  tlie  same  official  functions  with  those  of 
"  the  eleven"  ?  To  this,  we  reply,  that  the  sense  in  which  that 
name  is  applied  to  them,  can  only  be  determined  by  a  comparison 
of  the  circumstances  which  originated  their  respective  offices,  to- 
gether with  their  official  acts,  %oith  the  marks  appertaining  to  the 
apostolicity  of  "  the  eleven."  If,  like  these,  the  result  shows  that 
either  all  or  any  one  of  them  were  designated  and  appointed  by 
Christ  himself,  etc.,  and  that  they  were  otherwise  miraculously 
endowed,  then  were  they  apostles  in  the  true  and  proper  sense. 
If  not,  then  their  apostleship,  being  derived  from  human,  though 
inspired  sources,  was  of  an  inferior  order  to  that  of  "  the  eleven." 

We  shall  now  enter  upon  an  examination  of  each  case,  seriatim,^ 
in  the  full  confidence  of  our  arrival  at  the  two  following  conclu- 
sions, namely,  first,  that  the  name  or  title — a-nroaroAof,  is  used  in 
the  New  Testament  in  a  double  sense ;  that  is,  that  it  is  em- 
ployed to  denote  two  offices^  ecclesiastical^  entirely  separate  and 
distinct.  And,  second,  that  of  the  five  cases  under  review,  one 
only  possessed  the  marks  essential  to  that  apostolicity  which  be- 
longed to  "  the  eleven,"  and  that  hy  that  one  was  restored  the 
original  number  of  "  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb." 

Let  us  consider  this  name,  dTT6a7oXo(;,  then,  as  applied, 

[1.]  To  Bamahas.  It  occurs  in  connection  with  his  name  as 
an  associate  with  Paul.  ".Which,  when  the  apostles,  a-nooroXoi,  Bar- 
nabas and  Paul,  heard  of,  they  rent  their  clothes,"'  etc.  For  an 
account  of  their  appointment  to  the  apostleship  here  spoken  of, 
the  reader  is  referred  to  the  following  passage  :  "  There  were,  in 
the  Church  which  was  at  Antioch,  certain  prophets  and  teachers  ; 
as  Barnabas,  Simeon,  etc.,  and  Saul.  As  they  ministered  to  the 
Lord,  and  fasted,  the  Holy  Ghost  said.  Separate  me  Barnabas  and 
Saul,  for  the  work  whereunto  I  have  called  them.  And  when  they 
had  fasted  and  prayed,  and  laid  their  hands  on  them,  they  sent 
them  away."* 

The  question  here  is,  who  laid  hands  on  these  two  men  ?  The 
apostles  ?  No.  They  were  "  the  prophets  and  teachers  of  the 
Church  at  Antioch."  Then  also,  so  fiir  as  it  regards  Saul,  he  had 
been  raised  to  the  apostleship  some  time  before  this,  and  that  by 
Christ  himself'  To  suppose,  therefore,  that  Barnabas  was  an 
apostle  in  the  same  sense  as  was  Paul,  involves  the  absurdity  that 
"  Saul"  was  twice  raised  to  that  office. 

Then  too,  the  looi^k  of  an  apostle  in  the  highest  sense,  was  to 
continue  during  the  life  time  of  the  incumbent.     But,  the  work  to 

en  •>  cts  14  :  14.      (-2)  .\cts  13  :  1-3      P)  Acts  9  :  1-18.     See  al^o  vv.  20,  ii,  27.  29. 


132 

which  Barnabas  and  Saul  were  specially  set  apart,  was  "  fulfilled" 
or  terminated  at  Antioch  about  three  years  after^  It  follows, 
that  the  title  dixdaroXoi,  as  applied  to  Barnabas  with  Saul,  is  to  be 
understood  simply  in  the  sense  of  messenger^  or  the  setting  apart 
of  persons  already  ordained,  to  a  sjpecial  missionary  woi'k.  The 
title  is  never  subsequently  applied  to  Barnabas.  Try  it  in  its  ap- 
plication, 

[2.]  To  Epaphroditus.  Paul  speaks  of  him  thus  :  **  Yet  I  sup- 
posed it  necessary  to  send  to  you  Epaphroditus,  my  brother,  and 
companion  in  labor,  and  fellow-soldier,  but  vjuwv  61  aTxoaroXov, 
your  messenger,'"  or  apostle.  On  this  passage  we  remark,  that  the 
phrase  crvvepyov  juov,  is  rightly  rendered  in  our  version,  not,  my 
compeer,  but  "  my  companion  ;"  in  a  sense  similar  to  its  applica- 
tion to  Aquila  and  Priscilla,  Rom.  15  :  3,  rovg  ovvepyovg  fiov,  "  my 
helpers,"  etc. ;  and  to  the  apostles  : — Qeov  yap  eoiiev  awepyoi^  "  We 
are  laborers  together  with  God."  (1  Cor.  3  :  9.)  Otherwise  Aquila 
and  Priscilla  (!)  are  apostolic  compeers ;  and,  the  apostles  are  com- 
peers with  God  ! 

The  apostle  explains  the  nature  of  the  apostolicity  of  Epaphro- 
ditus, chap.  4  :  18.  "I  have  all,"  says  he,  "and  abound:  I  am 
full,  having  received  of  Epaphroditus  the  things  which  were  sent 
from  you,  an  odor  of  a  sweet  smell,  a  sacrifice  acceptable,  well- 
pleasing  to  God."  The  Philippian  Church,  by  an  act  of  well-timed 
liberality,  had  "  communicated  with  Paul  in  his  afflictions,"  (chap. 
4  :  11-14,)  through  Epaphroditus,  whom  he  therefore  styles  their 
anoaroXov,  messenger,  and  he  that  iiiinistered  to  his  wants."  (ch. 
2  :  62.)     Further  remark  would  be  supei-fluous. 

Consider  this  title, 

[3.]  In  reference  to  the  tioo  hrethren  that  accompanied  Titus  to 
Corinth.  Of  these  two  brethren  the  apostle  speaks  in  terms  of  the 
highest  commendation.  (2  Cor.  8  :  18,  22.)  Titus,  in  compliance 
with  Paul's  request,'  being  about  to  visit  Corinth,  is  accompanied 
by  these  brethren,  one  of  whom  at  least  "  was  chosen  of  the 
churches  to  travel  with  us  [i.e.  Paul]  with  this  grace,"  etc.  (v.  19.) 
He  was  therefore  a  messenger  of  the  churches,  and  both  he  and 
the  other  companion  of  Titus  were  messengers  of  Paul  to  the 
Church  at  Corinth.  These  facts  afford  sufficient  data  for  the  de- 
cision of  the  question  as  to  the  sense  of  the  word  dnoaroXoL  in  the 
following  sentence  :  "  Whether  do  any  inquire  of  Titus,  he  is  my 
partner  and  fellow-helper  concerning  you  ;  or  otir  brethren  be  in- 
quired of,  they  are  the  messengers,  dnooToXoi,  of  the  churches,  and 
the  glory  of  Christ." 

We  only  remark  in  conclusion  in  regard  to  these  cases,  that, 
whatever  were  their  functions  as  denoted  by  the  application  to 
them  of  the  title  d-noaToXog,  they  were  evidently  of  an  order  not 
only  totally  distinct  from,  but  inferior  to,  those  of  "  the  eleven." 

(1)  Compare  Acts  13  :  4-52,  with  chap.  14  : 1-36.      (2)  Philip.  2  :  25.    (3)  2  Cor.  3  :  6, 16, 17. 


133 

[4.]  If  now,  it  can  be  made  to  appear,  that,  of  the  remaining 
two  cases, — those  of  Matthias  and  Paul, — though  the  name  cTrofTro- 
Aof,  in  the  sense  of  its  comprehending  all  the  marTcs  which  be- 
longed to  the  apostohcity  of  "  the  eleven,"  is  applied  to  them ; 
yet  that  but  ONE  of  them  is  entitled  to  that  honor,  jure  divino, 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures  will  be  relieved  of  the  incongruity 
of  making  scores,  not  only,  but  even  "  THIETEEN,"  instead  of 
"  TWELVE,  apostles  of  the  Lamb,"  on  earth  and  in  heaven. 


SECTION  vni. 

Proof,  that  Paul  filled  the  vacancy  created  hy  the  fall  and  death  of  Judas — Acts  1  :  26, 
reconciled  with  the  above — Objections  answered — 1st :  That  it  impugns  the  inspi- 
ration of  the  Sacred  Narrative  as  furnished  by  Luke — 2d :  That  Peter  being  in- 
spired, could  not  err — 3d  :  That  Peter  must  have  received  explicit  directions  frour: 
Christ — 4th  :  The  Election  of  Matthias  was  decided  by  lot — 5th  :  That  the  num- 
ber "  twelve"  is  applied  to  the  Apostles  both  before  and  after  the  Vocation  of  Paul. 
— Direct  proofs  of  Paul's  claims  over  those  of  Matthias. — 1st :  Peter's  agency  in 
the  above  transaction  was  premature — And  hence,  2d :  Unauthorized — 3d  :  Psalm 
109  :  8,  inapplicable  to  this  case — 4th :  No  evidence  that  it  was  dictated  by  the 
Holy  Ghost. — No  direct  evidence  that  the  Apostles  themselves  claimed  the  right  to 
fill  said  vacancy. — Conclusion. 

In  conclusion,  therefore,  of  this  somewhat  protracted  inquiry 
into  the  number  of  the  New  Testament  apostles,  we  shall  claim 
this  honor — though  we  trust,  with  becoming  deference — in  behalf. 

Of  Paul,  over  that  of  Matthias.  Yes :  and  that  too,  with  our 
eye  now  resting  on  the  statement  as  recorded  in  the  Acts  (than 
which,  nothing  can  be  more  explicit),  in  reference  to  Matthias's 
election  to  fill  the  place  of  Judas.  "  And  they  gave  forth  their 
lots  ;  and  the  lot  fell  upon  Matthias ;  aiid  he  was  numbered  with 
the  eleven  apostles.''''^ 

"We  trust  that  our  candor  in  making  this  concession,  will  evi- 
dence that,  to  our  mind,  at  least,  this  statement  of  the  inspired 
narrator  7nay  be  reconciled  with  the  proposition  above  asssumed, 
in  reference  to  Matthias  and  Paul. 

First,  then.  To  the  objection,  that  the  historian  "  could  not 
have  written  under  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit,  or  he  never  would 
have  recorded  an  unwarrantable  act,  and  palmed  it  off  on  the 
Christian  world  as  authorized  ;"*  we  reply :  It  by  no  means  fol- 
lows that,  because  an  act  is  recorded  by  an  inspired  amanuensis, 
the  act  itself  must  of  necessity  have  been  dictated  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  business  of  the  historian  is,  simply  to  record  facts. 
Indeed,  the  entire  structure  of  sacred  history  is  founded  on  a  sim- 

(n  Acts  1  :  26. 
•  Bp.  McCoskrey's  Sermon :  Episcopal  Bishops  the  Succes.sors  of  the  Apostles,  p.  15. 


134 

pie  record  of  facts.  And,  when  connected  with  "  the  acts"  of  indi- 
viduals, be  they  apostles  or  others,  these  acts  are  left  "  to  speak 
for  themselves,  without  censuring  the  agents."  So,  in  the  above  in- 
stance of  the  recorded  election,  etc.  of  Matthias.  The  apostle  Peter 
had  predicated  the  action  in  regard  to  the  appointment  of  Mat- 
thias, on  the  prediction  concerning  Judas,  as  contained  in  the 
109th  Psalm.  "Let  his  habitation  be  desolate,  and  let  no  man 
dwell  therein :  and  his  bishopric  let  another  take^  It  formed  no 
part  of  the  business  of  the  historian,  however,  to  scan  the  reason- 
ing of  Peter  regarding  it,  or  to  decide  upon  the  merits  of  the  infer- 
ence which  formed  the  basis  of  his  conduct,  or  of  those  who  acted 
with  him.  That  is  the  exclusive  province  of  those  for  whose  "  in- 
struction in  righteousness"'  the  Bible  was  written.  That  the  spirit 
of  inspiration  should  have  permitted  the  record  of  this  appointment 
of  Matthias  to  appear  on  the  sacred  page  unreproved  and  uncon- 
demned,  is  no  more  evidence  that  it  had  the  Divine  sanction,  than 
that  the  conduct  of  Peter  in  returning  himself,  and  in  instigating  his 
apostolic  companions  to  join  him  in  returning,  to  his  and  their 
former  occupation  of  fishing,  during  the  interval  of  Christ's  en- 
tombment and  resurrection,  because  not  condemned  by  their  risen 
Lord,  was  divinely  authorized." 

But  it  is  further  objected,  that  Peter  and  those  who  acted  with 
him,  being  divinely  inspired,  could  not  have  erred  in  this  matter. 
To  this  we  answer,  that  nothing  is  more  evident  than  the  fact,  that 
such  a  belief  in  apostolic  infallihility  as  predicated  of  their  inspira- 
tion^ formed  no  pait  of  the  creed  either  of  "the  eleven"  or  of  the 
brethren.  Peter  had  erred  before  this  transaction.^  And,  his  act  in 
having  "  gone  in  to  men  uncircumcised  and  eating  with  them," 
though  a  divinely  official  act  on  his  part,  yet  until  it  was  fully  ex- 
plained to  those  of  the  circumcision,  was  considered  and  treated  as 
wholly  unauthorized.'*  Paul's  rebuke  of  Peter  for  another  of  his 
official  acts,'  the  nature  and  tendency  of  which  seriously  threatened 
the  best  interests  of  the  infant  Church,  illustrates  this  same  fact. 
If,  then,  Peter  thus  erred  both  before  and  after  his  endowment  in  its 
fullest  measure,  of  the  Pentecostal  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  might 
not  he,  and  with  him  his  compeers  and  others,  have  erred  before 
that  event  ? 

Once  more.  It  is  urged,  that  as  Christ  "  must  have  spoken  of 
the  treachery  of  Judas,  and  also  of  the  position  which  he  occu- 
pied," etc.,  "  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  gave  his  apostles 
instructions  to  supply  his  place."*  But,  why  left  to  "infer"  the 
giving  instructions  in  a  matter  involving  consequences  so  stupen- 
dous ?  If  Christ  "  must  have  spoken  of  the  apostas)^  of  Judas," 
upon  the  hypothesis  that  his  apostles  were  to  supply  his  place,  is 
it  not  "reasonable  to  infer"  that  he  would  have  given  them  in- 

(1)  2  Tim.  3  :  16.      (Q)  John  21    :  3.       (3)  John  21   :  3  ;   comp.  with  Matt.  26  :  31-35  ;   69-76. 
(4)  Acts  11  :  1-18.    (.5)  Gal.  2  :  Il-la. 

*  Bp.  McCoskrey's  Sermon,  p.  16. 


135  • 

structions  in  regard  to  it  at  once  direct  and  positive  ?  And,  espe- 
cially, when  the  effect  would  have  been  to  have  precluded  the 
possibility  of,  or  at  least  to  have  silenced  at  once  and  forever,  all 
cavils  on,  the  question  of  apostolic  prerogatives  ?  But,  allowing, 
for  the  sake  of  argument,  the  alleged  appointment  of  Matthias  by 
Peter ;  so  far  from  his  referring  to  any  such  instructions  from  his 
Divine  jNIaster,  he  predicates  the  whole  procedure  on  the  prophecy 
already  referred  to  respecting  the  filling  of  the  vacancy  of  the 
apostate  Judas,  in  the  109th  Psalm. 

Again,  it  is  urged,  that  the  appointment  of  Matthias  was  decided 
by  "  lot^'''  and,  therefore,  that  it  must  have  been  valid.  Not,  Ave 
reply,  without  the  evidence  of  direct  Divine  authority  for  the  substi- 
tution of  that  method  in  the  place  of  an  appointment  by  Christ  per- 
sonally. True,  those  concerned  in  this  transaction,  could  plead 
in  justification  of  its  adoption  a  variety  of  precedents  for  deciding 
the  election  in  that  form.  But  these  precedents,  employed,  as  they 
were,  on  such  diversified  occasions,  are  resorted  to  as  well  hy  Pa- 
gan '  as  by  Hebrew ;  and  the  design  of  which  is,  to  illustrate  that 
superintending  Providence  of  God  which  extends  to  the  minutest 
and  every-day  affairs  of  men  : — for  "  the  lot  is  cast  into  the  lap^  hut 
the  whole  disposing  thereof  is  of  the  Lord  :''^^ — certainly  show  the  ab- 
sence of  that  force  and  authority  which  the  nature  of  the  appoint- 
ment, and  the  pending  consequences  to  the  Church  of  God,  in- 
volve. 

Finally,  it  is  objected,  that  the  number  "  tiuelve'''  is  applied  to 
the  apostles,  between  the  above  aj)pointment  of  Matthias,  and  the 
vocation  of  Paul ;  and  also  by  that  apostle  himself  at  a  subsequent 
period.^'  But,  that  nothing  definitive  can  be  derived  from  these 
references  in  favor  of  Matthias  as  one  of  "  the  twelve,"  may,  we 
think,  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  the  same  number  "  twelve" 
is  applied  to  them  by  John  after  the  death  of  Judas  and  before  the 
election  of  MattMas,  when,  of  course,  there  were  only  "eleven"  in 
all  not  only,  but  when  there  were  only  TEN  of  them  present ;  and 
that  too,  on  the  very  solemn  occasion  when  Jesus  said  to  them, 
"As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you"!  The  passage 
referred  to  is  the  following :  "  But  Thomas,  one  of  the  twelve^ 
called  Didymus,  was  not  with  them  when  Jesus  came."  * 

It  only  remains  now  that  we  ask,  whether  there  be  not  reason- 
able ground  for  the  conclusion,  that  the  entire  proceeding  as  nar- 
rated of  this  transaction  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  Acts,  had  its 
origin  in  that  indomitable  ardor  and  impetuosity,  so  characteristic 
of  the  apostle  Peter  ?  We  shall  call  to  our  aid  in  suj^port  of  it 
the  following : — 

1.  This  act  of  Peter,  even  if  officially  valid,  was  premature. 
The  election  etc.  of  Matthias  transpired  prior  to  the  Pentecost; 
which   circumstance,   to   our   mind,    cannot   be    reconciled   with 

(1)  Jonah  1  :  7.     (2)  See  Acts  13  :  19  ;  Lev.   16  :  8  ;  Josh.  18  :  10  ;  1  Sam.  14  :  41,  42  ;  1   Chron 
24  :  5  I  Prov.  16  :  33.     (3)  Acts  2  :  14  ;  6  :  2  ;  and  1  Cor.  15  :  5.     (4)  Compare  Johu  20  :  vv.  21  and 24 


136 

Christ's  positive  command  to  tliem,  "that  they  should  not  depart 
from  Jerusalem,  httt  ^Y  ait  for  the  ^promise  of  the  Father  ;^  which 
promise  had  reference  to  their  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost  on  that 
day,  as  an  absolutely  indispensable  qualification  for  the  exercise 
of  their  apostolic  functions,"     Hence, 

2.  This  act  was  unautTwrized.  True,  with  the  facts  present  to 
his  mind  of  the  vacancy  inr  the  apostolic  college,  occasioned  by  the 
apostasy  of  Judas  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  declaration  of 
Christ,  made  prior  to  the  creation  of  said  vacancy,'  that  "the 
twelve  apostles"  in  the  militant,  should  "sit  on  twelve  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel"  in  the  heavenly,  hierarchy,  on 
the  other :  we  are  not  surprised  that  Peter  should  have  concluded 
that  there  "  m^lst  one  he  ordained  to  he  a  witness  with  them  (the 
eleven)  of  Chrisfs  vesurreGtionP*^  But,  that  he  erred  in  regard  to 
the  person  destined  to  fill  that  vacancy,  to  the  agency  to  be  em- 
ployed therein,  and  to  the  inode  of  its  accomplishment,  we  think 
may  be  gathered, 

(rt.)  From  the  ahsence  of  any  specific  allusion  to  either^  in  the 
prophecy  of  David,  in  the  109th  Psalm,  v.  8.  The  passage  in  the 
original  reads  thus :  ^iHh  w^^^  ^fi^p^  another  shall  take  his  office. 
The  verb  n;?-;  yikkach,  is  in  the  future  tense  ;  and  the  prophecy, 
consequently,  simply  announces  that  another  should  take  that 
ofiice  or  charge,  no  allusion  whatever  being  made  to  the  agency 
of  the  apostles  therein,  or  the  mode  of  the  appointment  thereto. 
To  this  we  add, 

(h.)  There  is  no  evidence  that  this  transaction  was  dictated  by  the 
Holy  Ghost.  So  far  from  it,  the  record  declares  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  not  yet  given,  because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glori- 
fiedr"  Admitting,  then,  that  Peter  and  his  compeers  in  ofiice,  in 
virtue  of  their  functions  previously  conferred,  had  the  right  to  fill 
said  vacancy  ;  yet,  those  functions  being  at  the  time  incomplete — 
(for  the  breathing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  them  by  Christ,  as  re- 
corded John  20  :  22,  was  dilTerent  in  degree,  and  for  a  different 
end,  from  the  "  power"  with  which  they  were  to  be  clothed  by  the 
descent  of  the  Iloly  Ghost  upon  them  at  Pentecost),*  it  follows, 
that  the  office,  as  conferred  on  Matthias,  was  imjyerfect.  They 
could  not  have  conferred  functions  on  another,  which  themselves 
did  not  possess.     But, 

(c.)  We  have  the  most  decisive  evidence,  that  tlie  apostles  them- 
selves claimed  no  right  to  fill  said  vacancy.  Else  why,  we  ask, 
the  proposition  by  Peter,  not  to  his  ten  apostolic  compeers,  but  to 
'"''the  disciples,''''  that  is,  to  the  "men  and  brethren,"  ("the  number 
of  the  names  together"  being  "about  an  hundred  and  twenty")?'' 
True,  all  the  apostles  might  have  been  present.  We  admit  that 
they  we/'e  present.     But  nothing  can  be  more  explicitly  stated, 

(1)  Acts  1  :  4,  5  ;   comp.  2  :  33.      (2)  Acts  1  :  8.      (3)  Matt.  19  :  28  ;   Luke  22  :  30       (4)  Acts  1  :  22. 
(5)  John  8  :  39  ;   Acts  1  :  7-11 ;  2  :  1-4.     (6)  Compare  John  20  :  23,  with  Acts  1  :  8,  and  2  : 1-lL 

(7)  Acts  1  :  15,  16. 


137 

than  that  "  ^/^'y,"  that  is,  "the  disciples,"  "  appointed  two,  Joseph 
called  Barsabas,  and  Matthias.  And  they  prayed,  and  said,"  etc. 
"And  theij  gave  fortli  their  lots,"  etc.'  Add  to  this,  finally,  the 
fact,  that  the  result  of  the  election  was  referred  by  the  whole  body 
of  the  disciples,  together  with  Peter  and  his  ten  associates  in  office, 
to  the  Lord  I  and  we  submit,  whether  evidence  can  be  more  com- 
plete. "And  they  prayed,  and  said,  Thou^  Lord,  which  knowest 
the  hearts  of  all  men,  show  whether  of  these  two  thou  hast 
chosen,"  etc.* 

In  conclusion,  then,  on  this  subject,  we  remark,  that,  after  a 
most  careful  review  of  the  narrative  of  this  transaction,  to  our 
mind  there  are  grounds  for  much  more  than  a  doubt,  whether 
Matthias  was  the  divinely  a2)2)ointed  successor  of  Judas.  Indeed, 
we  are  fully  persuaded  that  nothing  more  can  be  claimed  to  sus- 
tain it,  but  an  honest  but  mistaken  inference  of  Peter  on  the  one 
hand,  and  an  exceedingly  equivocal  rule  of  conduct  by  the  hun- 
dred and  twenty  disciples,  on  the  other.  And  these  considera- 
tions, taken  in  connection  with  the  fact,  that  no  conviction  could 
have  been  more  deeply  seated  in  the  minds  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves, than  that  they,  as  such,  had  no  power  to  fill  that  vacancy, 
not  only,  but  also  that,  unless  the  successor  of  Iscariot  should 
receive  his  commission  directly  from  the  Lord  Jestjs  himself,  it 
was,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  null  and  void  j  we  are,  we 
think,  compelled  to  look  elsewhere  for  the  one  possessed  of  a 
clearer  title  to  compeership  with  "  the  twelve  apostles  of  the 
Lamb."     That  title,  we  shall  now  claim,  adheres  in 

The  APOSTOLiciTT  OF  Paxil.  As  shown  above,  the  vacancy 
in  the  apostolic  college  could  be  filled  by  none  other  than  by 
one  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  who  should  derive  his  appoint- 
ment directly  from  Christ  hhnself  both  of  which  conditions  meet 
in  the  vocation  of  that  "chosen  vessel"  of  the  Lord — Paul.  For, 
though  "born  out  of  due  time,"  yet,  saj^s  he,  ''''last  of  all^  he 
(Christ)  ivas  SEEN  of  me  also.''^^  And,  that  he  did  not  receive 
his  appointment  from  the  apostles,  but  from  Christ  himself,  is 
manifest  from  the  following.  He  tells  us,  that  he  "  did  not  go 
up  to  Jerusalem  to  them  which  were  apostles  before  him,"  but 
that  he  was  "  an  apostle,  {not  of  men^  neither  hy  man^  hut  hy 
Jesus  Cheist,  and  God  the  Father,  who  raised  him  from  the 
deadr'Y 

(1)  Acts  1  :  23,  24,  26.  (2)  Acts  1  :  24.  (3)  1  Cor.  15 :  8.  (4)  Gal.  1  :  1,  11, 12,  and  v.  17. 
♦  It  is  here  to  be  particularly  noted,  in  defense  of  the  claim  here  urged  in  behalf  of 
Paul  as  one  of  "  the  twelve,'"  that,  as  of  "  the  eleven,''^  so  of  him  ;  his  designation  to  the 
apostleship  teas  not  by  imposition  of  hands.  The  laying  on  of  hands  upon  him  by  Ana- 
nias, Was  not  an  act  of  consecration  to  the  apostleship.  To  such  a  pretense,  it  is  sufficient 
that  we  reply,  that  the  qualifications  of  Ananias  fell  far  below  those  required  by  prela- 
tists  for  the  performance  of  that  act.  In  the  vision  of  Paul,  Ananias  appeared  simply 
as  "a  ware,"  not  as  an  apostle,  (Acts  9  :  12.)  His  highest  appellation  is  that  of"  a  dis- 
ciple^^  (ib.,  V.  10.)  And  the  object  of  his  mission  to  Paul  was,  not  to  make  him  an  apos- 
tle, but  by  laying  hands  on  him,  to  restore  him  to  sight,  (ib.,  vv.  12,  17,  18.)  and  by  bap- 
tism, to  introduce  him  into  the  Christian  Church,  (ib.,  v.  18.)     Nor  this  only.     But,  as 


138 


SECTION   IX. 

Recapitulation  of  the  reduced  ministerial  N.  T.  appointments,  according  to,  first,  their 
titles ;  and  second,  their  functions  and  titles. — Result :  The  whole  number  reduced 
to  four  orders — namely.  Apostles,  Prophets,  Evangelists,  and  Pastors  or  Teachers. — 
Proof,  that  neither  of  these  orders,  in  respect  to  their  original  primitive  endow- 
ments, was  designed  to  be  perpetuated  in  the  Church. — The  argument  applied,  1st, 
to  "  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb ;"  2d,  to  the  other  thr6e  orders. — Their  (that 
is,  the  apostles's)  primitive  functions  not  transmissible,  though  their  names,  in  part, 
are  retained. 

We  come  now  to  remark,  that,  of  the  ministerial  appointments 
recorded  in  the  New  Testament — 1st,  by  Christ  personally;  2d, 
by  the  Holy  Ghost;  3d,  by  the  apostles;  4th,  by  the  apostles  with 
others ;  5th,  by  others  independently  of  the  apostles ;  and  6th,  hj 
special  Providence,  the  following  is  the  result : — 

I.  That  the  aggregate  numbers  amount  in  all  to  twenty,  and 

II.  That,  on  the  reduced  scale,  the  orders  consisted  of  Apostles, 
Evangelists,  Prophets,  Teachers,  Elders  (as  inclusive  of  pastoral 
and  ruling  elders).  Deacons,  and  Angels ;  in  all,  eight  in  number ; 
which,  leaving  out  the  three  bearing  the  titles  of  elders,  ruling  el 
ders,  and  deacons,  (for  which,  the  reasons  will  be  assigned  in  the 
proper  place,)  precisely  corresponds  with  Paul's  enumeration  of 
them  as  given  in  1  Corinthians  12  :  28,  and  Ephesians  4  :  2.  For, 
the  apostle,  having  spoken  in  the  former  passage,  of  ministerial 
appointments  by  their  powers  or  fLinctions  and  titles  ;  and  in  the 
latter  of  their  titles  only  as  inclusive  of  their  powers  or  functions ; 
it  follows,  that,  of  the  number  of  Orders  which  remained  to  be  con- 
sidered, there  were  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  and  pastors  or 
teachers  :  in  all,  four. 

Of  these  four  orders,  it  was  assumed  as  fundamental  to  a  deter 
mination  of  what  was  to  constitute  the  standing  ministry  of  the 
Church  of  Clirist  in  all  time,  to  settle  the  question  as  to  whether 
they  were  designed  to  form  the  permanent  ministry  of  the 
Church. 

On  this  subject,  the  Scriptures,  we  believe,  will  be  found  most 

though  it  were  designed  as  a  standing  reproof  in  all  future  time  to  those  who,  in  virtue 
of  their  alleged  official  prerogatives  as  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  should  arrogate 
the  right  to  dispense  the  Holy  Ghost,  "  the  man^'  Ananias,  imparts  to  him  this  gift  also .' 
(ib.,  v.  17.) 

Again.  The  same  act  of  manual  imposition,  as  recorded.  Acts  13  :  3.  was  the  mere 
setting  Saul  apart,  with  Barnabas,  to  a  special  and  t>>mporary  mission  (compare  Acts 
13  :  1.  with  14  :  26) :  a  work,  though  compatible  with,  3'et  certainly,  not  exclusively  a 
part  of,  the  apostolic  office.  Nor  were  the  apostles  the  agents  employed  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  that  act.  It  was  performed  by  "  the  prophets  and  teachers^'  in  the  Church  at 
Antioch.  (Acts  13  :  1-3.)  Paul's  appointment  to  the  apostleship,  though  "  the  signs" 
of  it  (2  Cor.  12  :  12)  might  have  been  reserved  to  an  after  period,  was  of  a  date  anterior 
to  that  event,  (Acts  9:1-9;  15,  16.) 


139 

unequivocally  to  sustain  the  hypothesis,  that  they  were,  one  and 
all,  of  temporary  duration.     Let  us  test  it  in  its  application, 

I.    To  "  THE  TWELVE  APOSTLES  OF  THE  LaMB." 

On  this  subject  we  remark  in  the  first  place,  what,  we  think,  can- 
not fail  to  strike  the  mind  as  peculiarly  significant,  that,  with  the 
account  given  above  of  the  origin,  nature,  and  functions  of  "  the 
twelve,"  harmonizes  the  declaration  of  Christ  regarding  the  ulti- 
mate end  to  be  accomplished  by  their  appointment.  Having 
"  showed  himself  alive  to  them  after  his  passion,"  etc.,  he  said  :  "  Ye 
shall  receive  poiver^  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you  :  AND 
YE  SHALL  BE  WITNESSES  UNTO  ME,  BOTH  IN  JUDEA,  AND  IN 
JeKUSALEM,  and  in  all  SaMAEIA,  AN'D  UNTO  THE  UTTERMOST 
PARTS  OF  THE  EARTH."  * 

Now,  this  declared  design  of  their  mission,  viewed  in  connection 
with  the  marks  or  signs  of  their  apostolicity  :  namely,  1st,  that  they 
were  chosen  by  Christ  himself;  2d,  that  they  had  seen  Christ  per- 
sonally, etc. ;  3d,  that  they  were  inspired  and  infallible  ;  4th,  that 
they  were  endowed  with  miraculous  powers  ;  5th,  that  they  alone 
could  impart  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  6th,  that  their  mission 
was  universal ;  and  7th,  that  they  alone  possessed  the  right  to 
govern  absolutely :  and  what,  we  ask,  can  be  more  evident  than 
that,  as  an  Order,  their  ministry  in  the  Church  militant, — whether 
it  related  to  preaching,  baptizing,  teaching,  the  working  of  mira- 
cles, speaking  with  tongues,  appointing  ofiicers  in  the  Church,  and 
laying  down  rules  (whether  by  usage  or  by  express  injunction)  for 
the  government  of  the  Church, — was  of  a  special  and  extraordinary 
character  ? 

Nor  this  only.  For  having  fulfilled  the  purposes  of  its  appoint- 
ment, the  Scriptures,  as  we  shall  show,  are  equally  clear  in  furnish- 
ing the  evidence,  that  it  expired  with  the  necessity  that  created  it. 
In  other  words,  that  the  office,  apostoliccd,  of  "  the  twelve,''''  was  in 
no  sense  designed  to  he  transmissible  to  others.  No,  not  even  the 
najyie  d-nooroXog,  was  so  transmissible.  That  name,  like  "the  keys" 
of  Peter,  passed  with  them  into  the  heavens,  where  they  "  sit  on 
twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."  And,  even 
admitting, — which,  by  the  way  we  do  not,  except  in  a  secondary  or 
subordinate  sense — that  the  names,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  the 
remaining  three  orders, — prophets,  evangelists,  and  p)astors  or  teach- 
ers, are  now  used  to  designate  the  ordinary  ministry  of  the  Church, 
even  their  primitive  functions  were  not  transmissible.  In  proof, 
take  the  following  comparison  of  the  commission  as  originally  given 
by  Christ  to  "the  twelve,"  with  Paul's  account  of  the  design  of 
tneir  ministry  in  conjunction  with  the  others,  equally  derived  from 
Christ,  as  recorded  Eph.  4  :  11,  12.  "We  will  place  the  two  pas- 
sages  side  by  side. 

(I)  Acts  1  :  3-8. 


140 

Matt.  28  :  19,  20.  Eph.  4  :  11, 12. 

"  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  na-  "  And  he  gave  some  apostles ;  and 
tions,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  some,  prophets ;  and  some,  evangelists ; 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  and  some,  pastors  and  teachers ;  For 
Holy  Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe  the  perfectmg  of  the  saints,  for  the 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  command-  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying 
ed  you  :  And  lo,  I  am  with  you  cUway,  of  the  body  of  Christ :  Till  we  all 
even  unto  tlie  end  of  the  world,"  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of 

the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto 
A  PERFECT  MAN,  unto  the  meosure  of 
the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ." 

The  facts  here  affirmed,  are,  that  Christ,  "  when  he  ascended  up 
on  high,"  "  gave,"  in  the  order  of  his  "  gifts  unto  men,"  "  first, 
apostks.''^  Following  these,  as  the  necessities  of  the  Church  re- 
quired, now  that  she  was  being  reconstructed  under  the  new  econ- 
omy, were  others  under  the  apostles,  requisite  to  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  great  work  of  which  he  speaks — namely,  "  the  perfect- 
ing of  the  saints"  in  the  faith  of  Christ  doctrinally,  and  for  their 
edification,  government,  etc. : — propliets.,  evangelists^  and  pastors  or 
teox^hers. 

The  question  now  is,  How  long  was  this  their  work  as  "  apos- 
tles, ^Drophets,"  etc.,  to  continue?  The  apostle  answers.  "  Until 
they  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son 
of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man  ;  (mark — not  men) — elg  dvdpa  reXeiov  ; 
that  is,  to  a  perfect  body — "  the  Church  of  Christ,  which  is  his 
body^^ :  "  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature,  ^XiKiag  (age),  of  the  full- 
ness of  Christ." 

The  meaning  therefore  evidently  is,  that  from  the  apostolic  com- 
mission as  recorded  in  the  28th  of -Matthew  to  the  penning  of 
Eph.  4  :  11-13  ;  such  a  ministry  as,  in  addition  to  their  endow- 
ments of  the  gifts  of  inspiration  to  preach,  dispense  ordinances, 
teach,  work  miracles,  govern,  etc. ;  others  also  were  endowed  with 
miraculous  gifts  through  them,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of 
Christ,  "  UNTIL,"  out  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  they  {i.e.  the  apostles) 
had  made  one  perfect  man,  the  Church. 

Hence  the  harmony  of  this  view  with  the  original  promise  of 
Christ  to  "  THE  TWELVE  :"  "  Zo,  I  am  with  you  ahvay,  et^g  rr^g 
avvreXeidg  rev  ali^vog, — that  is,  TILL  the  conclusion  of  THIS  STATE 
OR  PERIOD  to  be  appropriated  to  THE  PERFECTING  OF  THE 
MODEL  KINGDOM,  SPIRITUAL.  And  so,  the  word  "until," 
as  employed  by  the  apostle.  It  is  /^s;tP*  in  Greek,  donee  in  Latin, 
adverbs  expressive  of  the  time,  how  long.  Both  passages,  as  to 
time,  refer,  not  to  the  offices  as  filled  by  either,  but  to  \\\%  personal 
ministry  of  each.  But,  "  the  twelve,"  and  those  who,  under 
them  constituted  the  miraculous  ministry  of  the  New  Testament 
Church,  having  "  fallen  asleep  in  Christ,"'  are  no  Xowg^x personally 
with  the  Church.  Therefore,  their  office  and  functions,  being  ex- 
traordinary,   were  untransferable,    and    hence,    temporary.      To 

(1)  1  Cor.  \i  :  IS. 


141 

place  this  matter  beyond  tlie  reacli  of  reasonable  controversy,  we 
nave  but  to  compare  tlie  above  promise  of  Christ,  "  I  am  with 
YOU  continually^''  etc.,  with  the  following  testimony  of  Paul : 
"  Verily^  their  sound^'' — that  is,  the  preaching,  etc.,  of  the  apos- 
tles, ^^loent  into  all  the  earth,  and  their  words  nnto  the  ends 
OF  THE  woKLD."*  This  douc,  and  the  tenure  of  their  commission 
"  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for 
the  edifj'ing  of  the  body  of  Christ,"  had  accomplished  its  widest 
range.  The  Church,  through  its  divinely  appointed  instrumentality, 
had  attained  to  "  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man^  Hence,  their  work,  thus 
finished,  joined  with  that  of  the  "prophets,"  etc.,  COMPLETED 
that  "  foundation"  which  rests  upon  "  Christ  as  the  chief  corner 
stone,"  and  upon  which  was  to  be  reared  the  superstructure  of  that 
Church  against  which  "  the  gates  of  hell  never  can  prevail."''  For, 
though  dead,  they  yet  speak.  "  In  their  essential  functions  of  in- 
struction and  government,  they  are  stilly  and  ever  will  Je,  with  the 
Church  as  the  foundation  on  which  the  whole  structure  must  rest, 
as  the  enthroned  authority  to  which  the  mind  of  every  minister, 
and  of  every  member,  must  yield  implicit  subjection." 

On  the  subject  of  the  remaining  orders, — "Prophets,  Evange- 
lists, and  Pastors  or  Teachers," — the  evidences  demonstrative  of  the 
inferiority  of  their  functions  to  those  of  "  the  twelve" ;  of  their 
respective  characteristic  differences  each  from  the  other ;  and  of 
the  line  of  demarkation  dra^vn  between  the  extraordinary  or  tem- 
porary and  the  ordinary  or  permanent,  ministry,  of  the  Church  ; 
being  so  intimately  connected  with  the  New  Testament  "  doctrine 
of  laying  on  of  hands^''  an  exhibit  of  a  scriptural  view  of 
the  one,  will  furnish  a  key  to  the  opening  up  of  the  other.  Hence 
our  passport  to  another,  and  a  most  important  and  interesting 
topic  of  inquir3^ 

(1)  Rom.  10  :  18.    (2)  Matt.  16  :  18 


142 


CHAPTER  II. 

ORDINATION. 
SECTION    I. 

Two  extremes  respecting  it. — As  a  ceremonial  action,  it  involves  "  the  laying  on  of 
hands." — Was  applied  to  various  uses. — This  Ceremonial  Action  defined. — Is  com- 
mon to  every  Dispensation — 1st :  The  Patriarchal  Age — Instances  of  its  use — 2d : 
The  Jewish  Dispensation — Do. — 3d  :  The  Christian  Dispensation — Do.  as  em- 
ployed, (1)  by  Christ.  Proof,  that  the  action,  as  employed  by  Him,  involved  no 
inherent  virtue  of  His  human  hand. —  (2.)  By  the  ^^osf/cs.  They  disclaimed  a// 
inherent  virtue  in  the  act  itself. — Instances  of  its  use  by  them.  First,  in  healing  the 
sick ;  Second,  in  the  bestowment  of  Spiritual  Gifts  ;  Third,  in  the  setting  apart  of 
a  person  to  any  work  or  office,  special  or  ordinary. — These  two,  entirely  separate 
and  distinct  acts,  and  regarded  entirely  different  ends. — Proof,  that  the  bestowment 
of  spiritual  gifts  was  exclusively  the  work  of  the  Apostles,  and  constituted,  pre-em- 
inently, the  "  seaV  of  their  Apostleship. 

Two  EXTREMES  mark  the  current  views  respecting  this  rite.  The 
one  sinks  it  helow^  the  other  raises  it  above,  the  scriptural  stand- 
ard. Our  endeavor  will  be  to  show,  that  it  is  not  an  empty,  idle, 
and  unmeaning  ceremony,  on  the  one  hand ;  nor  a  sacramental 
channel  for  the  communication  of  grace,  on  the  other. 

Our  first  remark  is,  that  ordination,  as  a  ceremonial  action,  in- 
volves '■^  the  laying  on  of  hanrJsy  But  this  action  was  appropri- 
ated to  other  purposes,  than  that  of  setting  apart  a  person  to  some 
ministerial  office.  To  understand  it,  therefore,  we  must  take  a 
view  of  it  as  a  whole.  Paul  makes  it  one  of  the  rudiments  of  the 
Christian  economy — "the  doctrine  o^  laymg  on  of  hands,'"  thus 
erecting  it  into  the  position  of  a  religiotis  rite.  As  such,  its  action, 
of  course,  is  symholic. 

The  import  of  this  symbolic  action,  then,  is  the  point  to  be  de- 
termined. We  offer  the  following,  as,  in  our  view,  the  only  defi- 
nition of  it  warranted  in  Scripture. 

Ordination  is  employed  to  denote,  that  the  instrument,  man, 
IS  "  ONE  with  God  in  declaring  his  purposes  towards  others, 
ON  whom  some  special  blessing  is  to  descend,   or  by  whom 

SOME   sacred  work  IS  TO   BE  PERFORMED. 

In  this  aspect,  be  it  observed,  unlike  any  other  rite,  it  stands 
alone  as  being  common  to  every  dispensation,  Patriarchal,  Jewish, 
and  Christian, 

(1)  Heb.  6  : 1,  2. 


143 

I. — The  Patriarchal  Age. — Under  it,  tlie  head  of  each  family 
was  invested  with  a  threefold  dignity — the  regal^  sacerdotal^  and 
prophetic.  In  this  last  named  capacity,  we  have  a  most  delightful 
illustration  of  one  of  the  modes  of  administering  this  rite,  in 
Joseph,  who  sought,  at  the  hands  of  the  venerable  and  dying 
Jacob,  his  last  prophetic  benediction  upon  his  two  sons,  Ephraim 
and  Manasseh.  Nor  can  we  overlook  the  circumstance  of  his  re- 
fusal to  accede  to  the  request  of  Joseph  to  change  his  right  hand 
in  favor  of  Manasseh  as  his  eldest  son,  as  evidence  that  he  under- 
stood the  ceremonial  action  as  denoting  the  harmony  of  his  will 
with  the  will  of  God  respecting  "  the  lads."  "  He  guided  his  hands 
wittingly.'"  The  previous  instances  of  the  use  of  this  rite  by  Mel- 
chizedek  in  blessing  Abraham,^  and  by  Isaac  in  blessing  Jacob 
when  he  sent  him  to  Padan-Aram,'  furnish  proof  that  "  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands"  had  been  a  custom  long  established  and  was  well 
understood.     And,  its  continuance, 

II. — Under  the  Jewish  Dispensation,  shows  its  equal  applicabil- 
ity to  that  age.  Indeed,  this  economy,  so  far  from  abolishing,  ex- 
panded pre-existing  religious  rites ;  and,  the  very  ministry  ordained 
to  dispense  them,  furnished  the^r^^  recorded  instance  of  ordina- 
tion to  any  office  by  "  the  laying  on  of  hands."  And  in  it,  as  in 
the  other  cases,  its  symbolic  action  is  equally  conspicuous.  We 
have,  1st.  God's  will,  appointing  the  Levites  to  their  enjoined  ser- 
vice. 2d.  The  Levites's  will,  in  purifying  themselves  for  said  ser- 
vice. 3d.  The  people's  will,  who,  by  the  impositions  of  their 
hands,  signify  their  concurrence  with  the  will  of  God. 

The  next  instance  to  which  we  shall  refer,  is  that  of  Moses  in 
the  setting  apart  Joshua  by  the  same  rite,  to  the  work  assigned 
him  of  the  Lord.'*  The  significancy  of  the  act  in  this  instance  in 
the  sense  above  attached  to  it,  is  greatly  heightened  by  the  pecul- 
iar circumstances  under  which  it  transpired.  The  nation  of  Israel, 
now  brought  to  the  very  confines  of  the  promised  land,  is  to  be  led 
over  to  its  possession  by  Joshua ;  while  Moses,  their  former  leader 
and  lawgiver,  is  called  upon  to  set  him  apart  to  his  great  work  hy  his 
own  hands^  not  only,  but,  having  been  permitted  merely  to  view 
that  "  glory  of  all  lands"  from  Pisgah's  top,  is  there  gathered  to  his 
fathers.^  "  It  requires  great  submission  from  Moses  that  he  is  to 
have  no  share  in  reaping  the  harvest  of  his  previous  toil."  Still, 
he  does  submit.  It  is  seen  in  visible  form,  in  the  imposition  of  his 
hands  on  the  head  of  Joshua. 

This  rite  was  also  of  frequent  occurrence,  as  connected  with  the 
sacrificial  services  of  the  Levitical  priesthood ;  of  which,  the  prin- 
cipal instances  were,  when,  on  the  day  of  annual  atonement,  "  Aaron 
laid  his  hands  on  the  head  of  the"  atoning  "  scape-goat,"  followed 
by  the  "  lifting  up  of  his  hands  toward  the  peopjl^''  in  scjlomn 

(1)  Gen  48  :  13-20.     (2)  Gen.  14  :  18.     (3)  Gen.  28  :  6.     (4)  Numb.  27  :  18  J3.    (u)  Compare  Numb. 
27  :  12-23,  with  33  :  47  ;  Deut.  3  :  27  j  32  :  49  j  34  :  1. 


I**- 


144 

benediction:'  and  which,  together,  typified  the  atoning  sacrifice  of 
Him  upon  whom  "  the  Lord  had  laid  the  iniquity  of  us  all,"  and 
of  the  blessings  which  were  to  accrue  through  it  to  the  penitent 
believer. 

We  now  remark,  that  this  rite,  thus  familiarized  to  the  Jewish 
nation  by  long  continued  usage  under  the  two  preceding  dispensa- 
tions, and  endeared  to  their  hearts  by  its  connection  with  acts 
which  they  held  to  be  of  priceless  value ;  it  is,  to  say  the  least, 
very  natural  to  suppose,  would  find  a  place  in  the  ecclesiastical  ar- 
rangements of  the  Church  as  reconstructed  under  Christ  and  his  * 
apostles.     And  thus  we  find  it  in  various  modes,  adapted  to, 

III. — The  Christian  Dispensation,  under  which,  its  perpetuity, 
we  observe,  was  ratified,  1st.  by  ihQeai'Uest  official  acts  of  Christ  him- 
self .  Nor  should  we  overlook  the  circumstances  of  its  administra- 
tion, marked,  as  they  were,  with  the  deepest  solemnity  and  interest. 
Under  the  promptings,  as  we  have  said,  of  long  established  usage, 
Jewish  parents  "  brought  their  little  children  unto  Christ,  that  he 
should  j'yw^  his  hands  on  them^  and  pray.'"  And,  so  far  from  re- 
fusing compliance  therewith,  having  rebuked  the  pride  and  folly 
of  human  device  in  those  who  "forbid  them,"  we  read,  that  "He 
took  them  w^  in  his  arms,  put  his  hands  upon  them^  and  hlessed 
them.'"  Nor  them  only.  At  Capernaum,  "  when  the  sun  was  set- 
ting, all  they  that  had  any  sick  with  divers  diseases,  brought  them 
unto  him  ;  and  he  laid  Ms  hands  on  every  one  of  them,  and  healed 
them."^  And,  besides  other  numerous  instances  of  this  act,  as  it  was 
among  the  first,  so,  we  now  remark,  it  constituted  the  last  official 
act  of  the  Redeemer  on  earth  !  "  And  he  led  them"  (his  apostles) 
**  as  far  as  to  Bethany,  and  he  lifted  up  his  hands,  and  blessed 
them.  And  it  came  to  pass  while  he  blessed  them,  he  was  parted 
from  them,  and  candied  into  heaven.^'"'  Yet  more.  This  rite,  so 
oft  observed  by  Christ  on  earth,  is  perpetuated  in  heaven !  St. 
John,  overpowered  by  the  bright  visions  of  his  glorified  Eedeemer 
before  the  throne,  received  divine  succor  from  him  by  the  ^^  laying 
on  of  his  hands  upon  him.,  and  saying,  Fear  not."" 

Christ,  therefore,  b}^  his  own  examjile,  has  placed  this  rite  among 
the  fundamentals  of  his  own  spiritual  and  heavenly  religion. 
And,  we  remark,  with  the  same  design  with  that  which  marked 
its  previous  administration.  It  is  no  dereliction  from  the  dignit}^ 
of  Christ  in  his  human  nature,  to  affirm,  that  his  purpose  in  these 
acts  was,  to  illustrate  the  perfect  concurrence  of  Ilis  will  in  that 
state,  with  that  of  his  heavenly  Father's  will,  whose  work  he  came 
to  perform.  Ilence  his  own  declaration.  "  I  came  down  from 
heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent 
me.'" 

And,  we  remark,  in  conclusion,  what  is  of  vital  consequence  in 

(1)  Lev.  16  :  20.     (2)  Matt.  19  :  13.     (3)  Mark  10  :  16.     (4)  Luke  4  :  40.     (5)  Luke  24  :  50.     (6)  Rev 
1  :  17.    (7)  John  6  :  30. 


.145 
these  premises,  that  the  wonders  performed  by  Christ  under  this 

act,    PROCEEDED   FKOM    NO    INHERENT    VIRTUE    OF    HIS    HUMAN    HAND. 

"  The  words  that  I  speak  unto  you,"  says  he,  "I  speak  not  of  my- 
self, hut  of  the  Father  that  dwelletli  in  7ne  :  lie  doeth  the  worhsJ^ 
No.  It  was  the  indweUing  power  of  the  Deity  in  mj^sterious 
union  with  Christ's  humanity  which  wrought  tliese  wonders  ;  and 
which  at  times  were  wrought  without  the  movement  of  the  hand, 
or  even  the  utterance  to  the  sufferer,  of  the  voice.  Pass  we  now, 
therefore,  to  consider  this  "  doctrine  of  laying  on  of  hands,"  as 
connected  with 

2d  Apostolic  Usage.  With  them,  this  rite  was  administered  in 
healing  the  sick,  in  the  bestowment  of  spiritual  gifts,  and  in  set- 
ting apart  to  any  special  of&ce  or  work. 

AVe  must  here  however  premise, — what,  by  the  way,  it  is  almost 
superfluous  to  add, — that,  if  there  were  no  inherent  virtue  in  the 
manual  impositions  performed  by  Christ  himself;  such  a  virtue 
cannot  be  presumed  to  have  presided  in  similar  acts  as  performed 
by  the  apostles.  We  are  not  surprised  therefore  in  finding  them, 
and  that  on  an  occasion  when  ihej  had  just  wrought  a  most  signal 
miracle, — that  of  curing  the  cripple — disclairning  in  the  most  em- 
jpihatic  terras^  all  siich  pretensions.  To  the  men  of  Israel  who 
marveled  at  that  miracle,  they  thus  spake :  "  Why  look  ye  so 
earnestly  on  us,  as  though  by  our  own  power  or  holiness  wb  had 
made  this  man  to  walk  ?  The  God  of  our  fathers  hath  glorified 
his  son  Jesus,  whom  ye  delivered  up,"  etc. ;  "  and  his  name, 
through  FAITH  in  his  name^  hath  made  this  man  strong,  whom  ye 
see  and  know."'  So  too,  miracles  wrought  by  them  also,  were 
sometimes  unaccompanied  b}^  the  usual  visible  rite.  Nor  were 
they  confined  to  this  particular  action.  "  Signs  and  wonders  were 
wrought  in  the  name  of  the  holy  child  Jesus,"  by  the  "  stretching 
forth  of  his  unseen  handj"*  in  answer  to  their  prayer.^  And, 
"Peter's  shadow  falling  on  the  sick,'"  and  "handkerchiefs  and 
aprons  taken  from  the  body  of  Paul,"*  might  each,  on  a  special 
occasion,  prove  the  miraculous  presence  of  the  Holv  Ghost  in  them. 
Still, 

(1.)  In  healing  the  side,  it  will  be  seen  that  "  the  laying  on  of 
hands"  formed  the  general  rule.  "  They  shall  lay  hands  on  the 
sick,  and  they  shall  recover."  ^  Hence  we  read  that,  by  the 
hands  of  the  apostles,  many  signs  and  wonders  were  done  among 
the  people."  '    The  same  rite  was  employed, 

(2.)  In  the  bestowment  of  spiritual  gifts.  See  this,  as  illustrated 
in  the  case  of  the  Samaritan  converts,  by  Peter  and  John ;  '  and  in 
that  of  the  disciples  at  Ephesus,  by  Paul :  *  and  we  add,  in  that  of 
Timothy,  by  the  same  apostle. 

This  latter  case  requires  a  passing  remark.  True,  "  the  time 
and  place  at  which  it  was  done,  is  no  where  recorded ;  but,  in  the 

(1)  Acts  3:1-11  .  12-16.  (2)  Acts  4  :  30.  (3)  Acts  6  :  15.  (4)  Acta  19  :  13.  (6)  Mark  16  :  Ift 
(6)  Acts  5  :  12.     (7)  Acts  8  :  14-17.     (8)  Acta  19  :  C,  7. 

10 


U9 

second  epistle  written  to  him,  Paul  indulges  for  himself,  and  ret 
quires  from  Timothy,  a  complacent  remembrance  of  the  occasion, 
when  that  grace  was  conferred.  "  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  re- 
membrance that  thou  stir  up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee  b^y 
ihe  putting  on  of  my  handsj'' '  What  this  "  gift"  was,  is  obvioug 
from  the  words  which  follow.  "  For  God  hath  not  given  us  the 
spirit  of  fear ;  but  of  power,  and  of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind."  * 
Now,  that  this  Avas  a  "  gift,"  not  of  office,  but  some  special  endow- 
ment which  might  qualify  Timothy — as  the  apostle  himself  had 
been  qualified — for  the  discharge  of  office,  will  appear  from  a  view 
of  this  act  when  taken  in  connection, 

(3.)  With  the  setting  apart  of  a  person  to  any  work  or  ojftce, 
special  or  ordinary.  We  affirm,  then,  that  these  two  acts, — that  of 
conferring  spiritual  gifts,  and  that  employed  in  the  creation  of 
office,  or  work,  special  or  ordinary,  were  two  entirely  separate  and 
distinct  acts,  having  in  view  entirely  separate  and  distinct  ends. 

The  confounding  of  these, — as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  has  ori- 
ginated in  the  Church  from  an  early  period  following  the  apostolic 
age,  the  gradual  departure  from  the  ministry  etc.  of  apostolic  in- 
stitution, to  which  may  be  traced  that  most  stupendous  system  of 
"  spiritual  despotism,"  the  PAPACY !  In  proof  of  the  above 
proposition,  we  olfer  the  facts  and  arguments  following : — 

1.  "  The  laying  on  of  hands"  in  the  bestowment  of  spiritual  gifts^ 

WAS    EXCLUSIVELY  THE  WORK    OF    THE    APOSTLES.       Others    bcsidcS 

them  possessed  these  gifts, — for  example,  the  "  hundred  and 
twenty  disciples"  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  among  whom  doubtless 
were  the  seven  deacons  mentioned  in  Acts  6,  and  of  whom  it  is 
said  that  they  were  "  men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  of  wisdom."  Now,  of  these,  Philip,  whose  preaching  in  Sa- 
maria had  resulted  in  the  conversion  of  many  of  "  the  people," 
though  he  had  been  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  ordained 
by  apostolic  hands,  and  could  perform  all  the  ordinary  and  somxe 
of  the  extraordinary  functions  of  the  ministry  ;  yet  there  was 
one  thing  Avhich  he  could  not  do :  which  none  hut  an  apostls 
could  do.  He  was  not  empowered  to  impart  spiritual  gifts.  An 
apostolic  deputation  must  be  sent  from  Jerusalem  for  that  pur- 
pose. "  Then  laid  they  (the  apostles  Peter  and  John)  their  hand^ 
on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost."  The  same  is 
true  of  this  gift  as  imparted  to  the  disciples  of  Ephesus  by  Paul. 
Then  also,  what  was  true  of  "  Philip  the  deacon,"  is  equally 
true  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  though  endowed  with  ministerial 
functions  superior  to  his.  For,  in  the  official  duties  as  prescrib- 
ed and  enjoined  on  them  by  Paul,  there  is  not  the  least  intima- 
tion given  that  they  were  required  to  bestow,  or  that  they  ever  did 
bestow,  those  gifts  on  others. 

It  will  also  be  seen  from  the  above,  that  these  gifts  were  bestow- 
ed by  the  apostles  indiscriminately  on  all  believers — private  Chris- 
CD  2  Tim.  1  :  6.    (2)  lb.  v.  7. 


U7 

tians  as  well  as  ''the  ministers  of  the  word."  Hence  those  "di- 
versities of  gifts,"  *'  differences  of  administrations,"  and  "  diversi- 
ties of  operations"  mentioned  in  the  12th  of  1st  Corinthians,  and 
of  which  the  apostle  treats  as  appertaining  to  the  Church  as  a 
hody^  and  not  of  those  who  sustained  the  ditferent  offices  which 
are  connected  with  its  permanent  organization.  Two  inferences 
follow. 

First.  That  the  power  to  impart  spiritual  gifts,  as  they  were 
bestowed  exclusively  by,  so  they  constituted,  pre-eminently,  the 
seal  of^  the  functions  apostolical.  Of  this,  Paul's  appeal  to  the 
Corinthians  is  decisive.  "  Are  not  ye  my  work  in  the  Lord  ? 
If  I  be  not  an  apostle  unto  others,  yet  doubtless  I  am  to  you : 
for  the  SEAL  of  mine  apostleship  are  ye  in  the  Lord." ' 

Second.  That  the  design  of  these  endowments  being  "  to  pro- 
vide for  the  rapid  diffusion  of  Christianity  by  extraordinary  means 
and  instruments,"  in  an  age  which  rendered  them  indispensable  to 
that  end,  no  arrangements  of  which  we  have  any  account  being 
made  for  their  continuance  beyond  the  lifetime  of  the  apostles, 
they  necessarily  expired  with  them. 

But  it  was  otherwise  with  "the  laying  on  of  hands"  in  setting 
apart  an  individual  to  any  work  or  office,  special  or  ordinary,  as 
will  be  shown  in 


SEcnoN  n. 

Proof,  that,  in  setting  apart  to  office,  others  beside  the  Apostles  laid  on  hands. — Instances 
of  the  recorded  ordinations  by  both — First-,  by  the  Apostles  ;  The  seven  deacons, 
Acts  6  :  1-8 — Second,  by  the  prophets  and  teachers  of  Antioch  ;  Saul  and  Barnabas, 
Acts  13  :  1-3 — Third,  Timothy  circumcised  by  Paul,  Acts  16  :  1-3 — also,  the  con- 
ferment on  him  by  Paul,  of  "  the  gift  of  God,"  2  Tim.  1  :  6, 1— Fourth,  Timothy's 
ordination  by  "  the  presbytery"  of  Ephesus,  1  Tim.  4  :  14. — Proof  that,  as  these 
acts  occurred  at  different  times,  places,  and  occasions,  they  could  not  have  been 
identical. — Inference,  Paul  not  connected  with  his  ordination  by  "  the  presbytery." 

2.  Others  besides  the  apostles  were  identified  with  these  acts.  Take, 
as  evidence,  the  conduct  of  Simon  the  sorcerer,  on  the  occasion  of 
the  bestowment  of  spiritual  gifts  by  Peter  and  John  on  the  Sama- 
ritan converts.  What  are  the  facts  in  this  case?  They  were 
simply  as  follows.  The  truth  and  power  of  the  miracles  wrought 
by  Philip  among  the  Samaritans,  had  foiled  all  the  arts  of  Simon's 
sorcery  and  had  mortified  his  pride.  Could  he  therefore  but  "obtain 
that  power"  which  Philip  did  riot  possess,  of  enabling  others  to  work 
miracles  in  connection  with  himself,  he  might  organize  a  body  in 
dependence  on  himself,  emerge  from  the  eclipse  he  had  suffered, 
and  be  again  the  "  great  one  of  the  city."  Having  therefore  wit- 
nessed t£e  bestowment  on  the  Samaritan  converts  of  the  power 

(I)  1  Gor.  f>  :  2. 


'»f* 


148 

he  so  mucli  coveted,  "  that  through  laying  on  of  the  apostles's  hands 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  given,  he  offered  them  money,  saying,  Give 
ME  also  THIS  POWER,  that  on  whomsoever  /  lay  hands,  he  may  re- 
ceive THE  IIoLY  Ghost."  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  Simon  coveted, 
not  office,  but  a  power  which  lay  heyond  it. 

So,  of  the  instance  of  the  conferment  of  this  gift  by  Paul  on 
the  disciples  of  Ephcsus.  There  being  no  field  assigned  them  for 
the  exercise  of  ministerial  functions,  it  could  not  have  been  office 
to  which  they  were  appointed  by  that  act. 

Having  thus  cleared  the  way  before  us,  we  now  proceed  to  an 
examination  of  the  several  instances  recorded  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, of  "  the  laying  on  of  hands"  in  connection  with  the  appoint- 
ment of  individuals  either  to  some  special  work  or  ordinary  office. 

Here  again,  we  must  observe,  an  obvious  necessity  exists  for  a 
careful  discrimination  between  appointments  to  a  special  work,  and 
designation  to  an  ordinary  office.  It  will  be  found  indispensable  to 
a  scriptural  view  of  what  was  designed  to  constitute  the  extraordi- 
nary and  temporary,  and  what  the  ordinary  and  permanent^  ministry 
of  Christ's  Church. 

The  instances,  then,  of  "  the  laying  on  of  hands"  above  alluded 
to,  are  the  four  following,  viz, : — 

I.  The  ordination  of  the  Seven  Deacons  by  the  twelve  Apostles. 
(Acts  6  :  1-6.) 

II.  The  setting  apart  of  "  Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  where- 
unto  the  Holy  Ghost  had  called  them."     (Acts  13  :  1-3.) 

III.  The  manual  impositions  employed  in  the  case  of  Timothy 
by  Paul  and  the  Presbytery.  (See  2  Tim.  1:6;  and  1  Tim.  4 
-14. 

ly.  Paul's  directions  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  regarding  the  cases 
of  ordination  about  which  they  were  to  employ  their  minds  and 
hands.     (1  Tim.  1  :  1-2  ;  8,  etc. ;  5  :  22  ;  Titus  1  :  5,  etc.) 

I,  The  Seven  Deacons.  The  first  six  verses  of  the  6th  chapter 
of  the  Acts  give  an  account  of  the  circumstances  which  occasioned 
the  instituting  this  office,  and  the  process  by  which  it  was  effected. 
The  proposition  of  the  Apostles  to  "  the  multitude  of  the  disci- 
ples," to  relieve  them  from  all  worldly  and  secular  concerns,  that 
they  might  "  give  themselves  continually  to  prayer  and  to  the 
ministry  of  the  word,"  meeting  with  their  cordial  assent,  they  pro- 
ceeded at  once  to  elect  the  above  number  of  deacons,  "whom 
they  set  before  the  Apostles  ;  and  when  they  had  prayed,  they  laid 
their  hands  on  them.''^  As  they  had  previously  received  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  this  act  was  a  designation  to  office.  Of  their 
precise  functions,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  in  another  place. . 


149 

II.  The  appointment  of  Saul  and  Barnabas  to  their  work.  In 
addition  to  what  we  have  already  offered  on  the  subject  of  this 
appointment,*  we  now  remark,  that  Saul  and  Barnabas,  at  the 
time  of  their  separation  to  the  work  assigned  them,  are  classified 
with,  and  are  spoken  of  as  performing  certain  official  acts  common 
to,  "  the  prophets  and  teachers'''  in  the  Church  at  Antioch,  who  ar*- 
now  commanded  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  set  them  apart  by  the  la- 

on  of  their  hands.  Yet  it  is  certain  that  Saul  had  been  calle'^ 
apostle  several  years  before  this,'  and  hence  was  posse^. 
functions  superior  to  theirs.  It  follows,  that  no  apostolic  hanuo 
having  been  concerned  in  this  transaction,  and  their  mission  having 
been  accomplished  in  the  space  of  about  three  years,*  is  evidence 
decisive  that  the  work  assigned  them  was  of  a  special  and  extra- 
ordinary character, 

III.  The  manual  impositions  employed  in  the  case  of  Timothy. 
There  are  three  passages  relating  to  this  individual,  which,  in  this 
connection,  claim  our  special  regard.  The  first  relates  to  his  cir- 
cumcision by  Paul.'  The  second,  to  the  gift  of  God  conferred  on 
him  by  the  laying  on  of  Paul's  hands.*  The  third,  to  another  gift, 
which  he  received  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  Pres- 
bytery,* 

Of  "the  occasion,  nature,  and  design,  of  Timothy's  circumcision 
by  Paul,  we  shall  speak  presently.  An  important  question,  how- 
ever in  regard  to  the  other  two  acts,  now  presents  itself  We  ask, 
then  :  Were  they  identical  1  If  so,  then  was  Paul,  as  an  Apostle, 
UNITED  WITH  the  Presbytery  in  conferring  office  on  Timothy  ?  If  not, 
it  follows  that  the  imposition  of  hands  by  Paul  (2  Tim.  4  :  14) 
was  conferred  on  Timothy  on  another  occasion,  and  at  a  different 
time  and  place,  and  also  for  a  different  purpose,  from  those  con- 
nected with  the  act  of  the'Presbytery.  In  support,  then,  of  this 
latter  conclusion,  we  remark, 

1.  That  Paul,  having  chosen  Timothy  as  a  co-worker  with  him, 
it  is  natural  to  suppose,  that  proof  being  furnished  of  his  meetness 
for  his  work,  the  Apostle  would  be  desirous  of  completing,  in 
every  way,  his  qualifications.  "  It  might  be  anticipated  that  he 
would  make  him  a  living  epistle  of  himself  to  those  to  whom  he 
would  have  to  send  him.  How  could  this  be  done  but  by  laying 
his  own  hands  upon  him  at  some  fitting  and  solemn  season,  to  con- 
fer that  power  of  miracles,"  which  lay  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
official  functions  of  the  Presbytery,  and  which  was  indispensable 
to  "  authenticate  him  as  an  associate  and  messenger  of  the  Apos- 
tle, wherever  he  might  be  sent,  and  on  whatever  mission  he  might 
be  employed."  Such  a  qualification,  in  all  other  cases,  had  in- 
variably preceded  ordination  to  office.     In  no  case  had  it  been  con- 

(1)  Acts  9  :  1-14  ;  15, 16.  (2)  Compare  Acts  13  :  1-3,  with  14  :  36.  (3)  Acts  16  :  1-3.  (4)  2  Tim. 
1  :  6,  7.     (5)  1  Tim.  4  :  14. 

♦  See  p.  131. 


150 

ferred  simultaneously  witli  that  act  On  what  ground,  then,  could 
the  order  of  its  conferment  on  Timothy  be  made  an  exception  to 
the  general  rule  ?     But, 

2.  Though  the  time  and  place  of  this  transaction  should  he  no  where 
recorded^  it  furnishes  no  ground  for  the  inference  that  the  gifts  here 
spoken  of  are  identical.  Taking  the  fact  as  it  stands  recorded  in 
1  Tim.  4  :  14 ;  on  our  hypothesis,  what  occasion,  we  ask,  so 
opportune  for  the  conferment  of  this  "  gift  of  God"  on  Timothy, 
as  when  commended  to  that  apostle  on  his  visit  to  Derbe  and 
Lystra  by  the  brethren  there,  as  a  suitable  person  to  aid  him  in 
his  arduous  work  ?'  The  Apostle  doubtless  was  aware  of  the  fact 
that  the  office  which  Timothy  was  destined  to  fill  in  the  Church 
had  been  designated  by  "  prophecy."*  But  Timothy  was  a  youth. 
And  if  Paul  found  it  necessary  to  enjoin  upon  the  Church  the 
dut}^  of  not  despising  him  on  that  account'  after  he  had  been  in- 
ducted into  office,  how  much  more  necessary,  that  the  conferment 
of  the  above  "  gift"  should  precede  his  induction  into  said  office, 
by  way  of  enabling  him  to  furnish  the  evidence  of  the  fullness  of 
his  qualifications  for  his  work,  and  of  the  consequent  applicability 
of  the  "  prophecy"  as  above  to  him.  With  such  credentials,  the 
Presbytery  could  furnish  no  pretext  for  refusing  to  admit  the 
youthful  candidate  to  the  office  thus  assigned  him  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  What  would  seem  decisive,  however,  of  the  point  here 
contended  for,  is  the  fact,  that  from  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  we  are  fully  warranted  in  the  conclusion,  that  Timothy  re- 
ceived the  imposition  of  the  Apostle's  hands  at  least  as  early  as  a.  d. 
53,  when  Paul  "  would  have  him  go  forth  with  him"  as  mentioned 
Acts  16  :  3  ;  whereas  his  appointment  to  office  by  the  Presbytery 
of  Ephesus,  1  Tim.  4  :  14,  did  not  take  place  until  A.  d.  Qb  ;  which 
circumstance  accounts  for  the  Apostle's  omission  to  allude  to  his 
absence  from  the  Presbytery  on  the  occasion  of  his  ordination  at 
their  hands;  and  is,  therefore,  to  our  minds,  decisive  of  the  point 
that  "  the  gift  of  God,"  in  the  sense  of  qualifying  him  for  the  dis- 
charge of  liis  office,  and  which  the  Apostle  only  could  impart,  had 
preceded  theirs  ;  and  that,  consequently,  his  presence  with  them  in 
the  conferment  of  office,  was  unnecessary.     Again  : 

3.  If  a  necessity  existed  for  the  presence  of  the  Apostle  on  the 
above  occasion,  in  order  to  invest  Timoth}^  with  official  functions 
which  "  the  Presbytery"  had  not  the  power  to  convc}',  and  with- 
out which  his  ordination  had  been  invalid  ;  how  are  we  to  account 
for  the  fact,  that  the  writer  of  "  the  Acts"  has  omitted  to  refer  to 
a  circumstance  of  such  vital  importance  to  the  guidance  of  the 
Church  in  all  future  time;  while  he  is  most  careful  to  record 
another  fact,  that  of  his  circumcision  by  Paul,  which  was,  unde- 
niably, "  a  mere  subordinate  and  prudential  operation." 

In  view,  then,  of  what  is  here  offijred  in  reference  to  the  three 

(1)  AcU  16  :  1-3.     (S)  1  Tim.  4  :  14.     (3)  1  Tim.  4  :  12. 


151 

passages  whicli  relate  to  Timothy,  as  above,  three  inferences 
follow : 

First,  that,  as  a  matter  of  expediency,  Paul  circumcised  him. 
His  mother  was  a  Jewess  ;  his  father  was  a  Greek,  It  was,  there- 
fore, to  render  him,  as  his  co-worker,  equally  accessible  to  Jew  and 
Greek. 

Second.  As  the  office  which  Timoth}'-  was  to  fill  had  been  de- 
signated by  ^^ prophecy,^''  Paul,  by  lajdng  on  his  hands,  had  com- 
pleted those  qualifications  essential  to  the  full  exercise  of  hie 
functions,  and  to  enable  him  through  them  to  overpower  any 
objections  which  might  have  arisen  in  the  minds  of  the  Presbytery 
on  account  of  his  youth,  showing  them  the  hand  of  God  already 
upon  him  to  form  him  for  his  work,  which  hand  theirs  were,  with- 
out hesitation,  to  follow.     And  hence, 

Third.  That  there  is  an  evident  distinction  in  the  gifts  here 
spoken  of:  the  former  consisting  of  his  endowment  of  miraculous 
powers  by  Paul  as  an  indispensable  qualification  for  the  discharge 
of  his  offtcial  functions  ;  the  latter  of  his  induction  into  said  ofiice 
by  "  the  laying  on  hands  by  the  Presbytery." 


SECTION  in. 

Proof  that  the  official  functions  of  Timothy,  and  of  "  the  Presbytery,"  were  not  iden- 
tical.— Timothy  and  Titus,  itinerating  Evangelists,  and,  as  such,  their  functions 
were  special  and  extraordinary,  and  therefore  temporary. — Remarks  respecting  the 
last  two  orders  :  Prophets,  and  Pastors  or  Teachers,  enumerated  in  Eph.  4:11. 

But  were  the  official  functions  of  Timothy  and  of  the  Pres- 
bytery identical?  That  they  were  not,  will  appear  from  the  fol- 
lowing : 

"  The  Preshytery''''  was  composed  of  those  so  often  designated 
in  the  New  Testament,  "Me  elders,  TrpeajSyrepot,  of  the  Church,"' 
such,  for  example,  as  those  ordained  by  Paul  and  Barnabas  in 
Lystra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch;^  and  those  whom  Paul  called  to 
him  from  Ephesus  to  Miletus.^  In  one  passage,  that  of  1  Tim. 
4  :  14,  in  our  version  the  Greek  word  for  elders,  TrpeGjSvTepoi,  ib 
simply  Anglicized,  and  they  are  called  "  the  Presbytery."  They 
are  also  known  by  the  name  of  Bishop,  enioKOTrog,  overseer.*  The 
one  name,  "  Elder,''''  indicated  one  of  the  qualifications  desirable 
for  the  individual  who  was  to  discharge  the  functions  denoted  by 
the  other,  "  Bishop,''''  or  an  "  overseer."  Their  functions  consisted 
in  their  having  "the  oversight"^  of  "  the  flock,"  to  rule  or  govern, 
to  "  feed  the  flock  of  God,""  to  "labor  in  word  and  doctrine,"'  etc., 
as  the  stated  pastors  thereof  They  may  therefore  be  properly 
designated  Presbyter-Bishops. 

(1)  A  cts  20  :  17.    (2)  Acts  14  :  21-23.    (3)  Acta  20  :  17.    (4)  Acts  20  :  28  ;  Philip.  1  :  I  j  1  Tim. 8  : « ; 
Titus  1  :  7  ;  1  Pet.  2  :  25.    (5)  1  Pet.  6  :  2.    (6)  lb.     (7)    I  Tim.  6  :  17. 


152 

Now,  that  the  functions  of  Timothy  (and  with  which  we  may 
connect  those  of  Titus,  his  compeer  in  office,)  transcended  those  of 
the  Presbyter-bishops,  will  appear  from  the  duties  enjoined  on  them 
by  the  Apostle.  They  were  directed  to  "preach  the  word,'"  not 
only,  but  to  "  charge  some"  who  had  departed  from  the  truth 
that  they  "teach  no  other  doctrine'"'  than  that  which  they 
had  received  from  the  Apostles.  Also,  to  "  exhort  and  re- 
buke with  all  authority;'"  to  "command  and  teach;"*  to  try  delin- 
quent elders  ;'  to  rebuke  sinners  before  all  f  to  commit  to  faithful 
men  the  things  they  had  heard  from  Paul,  that  they  might  be  able  to 
teach  others  also ;'  to  "  ordain  elders  in  every  city,"  and  to  "  set  in 
ord^r  the  things  that  are  wanting''''^  to  the  "  perfecting  of  the  saints^ 
the  WOHK  of  the  ministry^  and  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christy  TILL 
they  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith  to  A  PERFECT  MAN,"'  efc.,  as  the 
Apostle  had  "  appointed"  them. 

Additional  light  on  this  subject,  however,  may  be  derived  from 
a  view  of  the  nature  and  design  of  the  worh  assigned  to  Timothy 
and  Titus,  as  indicated  by  the  title  applied  to  them.  As  \ve  proved 
on  a  previous  occasion,*  the  name  apostle  is  no  where  given  to 
them  in  the  New  Testament ;  so,  we  affirm,  they  are  no  where 
called  bishops,  in  those  writings.  The  postscripts,  at  the  close  of 
the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  that  appended  to  the  Epistle 
to  Titus,  and  which  speak  of  the  former  as  the  first  bishop  of  the 
Church  of  Ephesus,  and  of  the  latter  as  the  first  ordained  bishop  of 
Crete,  are  confessedly  legendary  and  spurious.  Hence,  unauthori- 
tative. The  title,  then,  by  which  Timothy  (and  his  work  being 
the  same,  of  Titus,  also)  is  known,  is  that  of  Evangelist ;  a  title,  it 
should  be  particularly  noted,  which  Paul  affixed  to  his  office, 
AFTER  his  ordination  by  "the  Presbytery."  "  Do  the  worlc  of  an 
EVANGELIST."  "     'E.vayyeXiOTOv. 

The  office  of  an  evangelist — -we  remark  by  the  way — originated 
in  diffisrent  ways.  It  was  sometimes  appointed  by  the  Holy  Ohost^ 
as  in  the  instance  of  Barnabas  and  Saul.  Sometimes  by  that  of 
the  Church,  as  Epaphroditus  by  the  Church  at  Philippi.  Some- 
times by  prophecy,  as  in  the  case  of  Timothy. 

Then  too,  its  functions  varied  :  that  is,  they  corresponded  with 
the  circumstances  which  originated  them  :  for  example,  Mark  and 
Luke  compiled  for  the  Church  at  large  the  history  of  our  Savior 
as  they  received  it  from  the  lips  of  the  apostles,  while  each  of  the 
others  were  employed  in  other  ways.  The  fact  however  of  its  ap- 
plication to  different  functionaries,  no  more  invalidates  its  use  as 
denoting  a  special  office,  than  that  of  the  double  signification  of 
the  name,  apostle.  Generally,  then,  the  office  which  it  denoted 
was  that  of  an  itineracy,  in  which  respect,  it  partook,  in  part,  of 
the  character  of  the  great  apostolic  work  itself,  and  was  evidently 

(4)  2  Tim.  4  :  2.  (2)  1  Tim.  1  :  3.  (3)  Tit.  2  :  15  ;  2  Tim.  4  :  2.  (4)  1  Tim.  4  :  11.  (5)  lb.,  T. 
19.  (6)  lb.,  V.  20.  (7)  2  Tim.  2  :  2.  (8)  Tit.  1  :  5.  (0)  Kph.  4  :  12,  13.  (10)  Compare  1  Tim.  4  :  14, 
with  2  Tim.  4  :  6. 

*  See  pp.  129,  130. 


153 

designed  to  sustain  to  the  apostles,  a  relation  corresponding  to 
that  of  theirs  to  the  Great  Bishop  over  all,  during  his  public  min- 
istry. They  were  either  the  apostles's  personal  companions  in  their 
travels,  or  were  deputies,  "  whom  the  apostles  employed  in  their 
communications  to  the  churches  at  times  when  they  could  not 
conveniently  visit  them,"  and  "on  whom  they  devolved  the  work  of 
completing  the  organization  of  infant  churches  when  they  could 
not  tarry  to  finish  that  which  they  had  themselves  begun."  Hence 
the  Pauline  directions  as  follows,  to  Timothy  and  Titus.  Writing 
to  Timothy,  he  says — "  As  I  besought  thee  to  abide  still  at  Ephe- 
sus,  when'l  went  into  Macedonia," '  etc.  Now,  on  the  supposition 
that  Timothy's  official  functions  as  an  evangelist  invdved  his  per- 
manent  location  at  Ephesus,  the  language,  "  I  besought  thee  to 
abide  still  at  Ephesus,"  etc.  seems  irrelevant  and  superfluous  not 
only,  but  invidious.  "  To  beseech  Timothy  to  stay  in  a  place  where 
he  is  fixed  in  his  charge,  and  which  he  could  not  quit  without  of- 
fending God  and  failing  in  his  duty  :  to  speak  the  truth,  that  is  a 
request  that  is  not  very  obliging;  for  it  evidently  presupposes, 
that  a  man  does  not  lay  his  duty  much  to  heart,  when  he  must 
needs  be  entreated  to  do  it."  In  addition  to  this  it  is  to  be  borne 
in  mind,  that  the  above  passage  is  the  only  one  which  connects  the 
name  of  Timothy  with  Ephesus. 

To  Titus,  the  apostle  writes  thus — "For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in 
Crete,  that  thou  shouldest  set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting, 
and  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee." '  A  case, 
entirely  analogous  to  the  preceding.  Titus  is  "  /e/?"  in  Crete, 
which  implies  a  temporary  separation  between  himself  and  the  apos- 
tle. And,  chap.  3,  v.  10,  shows  that  Paul  was  anxious  that  that 
separation  should  terminate  as  soon  as  possible.  "  When  I  shall 
send  Artemas  unto  thee,  or  Tychicus,  be  diligent  to  come  unto  me 
to  Nicopolis  :  for  I  have  determined  there  to  winter."  Titus  was 
.wanted  elsewhere  than  Crete,  and  for  other  purposes.  As  soon 
therefore  as  the  apostle  could  fix  upon  a  suitable  person  to  fill  his 
place  in  Crete,  he  desired  him  to  hasten  to  join  him  at  Nicopolis, 
to  receive  his  further  instructions  to  labor  in  another  field. 

Finally,  what  is  decisive  of  the  point  here  contended  for  is,  that 
both  Timothy  and  Titus,  throughout  the  epistles  addressed  to 
them,  continued  to  receive  and  obey  directions  from  the  apostle  to 
perform  those  labors  peculiar  to  their  functions  respectively  as 
itinerating  evangelists,  at  periods  subsequent  to  the  fulfillment  of 
the  mission  of  the  one  at  Ephesus,  and  of  the  other  at  Crete ; — and, 
their  functions,  as  shown  above,  having  been  created  as  an  appen- 
dage to  the  office  apostolic,  it  follows,  that  those  functions,  as 
such,  having  found  their  beginning,  so  they  found  their  end,  in 
their  relation  to  it. 

Clearly,  then,  the  official  functions  of  Timothy  and  Titus  as 

(1)  1  Tim.  1  :  3.    (2)  Titus  1  :  5. 


154 

itinerating  evangelists,  were  entirely  distinct  from  those  of  Presby- 
ter-bishops, which  were  local. 

So  also  of  the  superiority  of  the  former  over  those  of  the  latter. 
If  to  this  it  be  objected,  that  it  involves  the  designation  of  one  to 
office  of  a  grade  superior  to  those  of  his  ordainers  ;  we  reply  :  that 
Paul,  though  an  apostle,  having  been  himself  set  apart  to  a  special 
work  by  the  "  laying  on  of  hands"  of  Simeon,  and  Lucius,  and 
Manaen,  and  others  of  "  the  prophets  and  teachers  in  the  Church 
at  Antioch  ;"  '  which  special  work,  independently  of  his  apostoli- 
cal character,  was  superior  to  theirs :  he  saw  no  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  such  designation  to  office  as  in  the  case  of  Timothy  by  "the 
presbytery." 

We  add,  in  conclusion  on  this  subject,  that  there  is  a  total  absence 
of  any  intimation  in  the  New  Testament^  that  the  official  functions  of 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  intended  to  he  perpetual.  In  Paul's  vale- 
dictory address  to  the  elders  of  the  Church  at  Ephesus ;  (and 
which  was  doubtless  cotemporary,  or  nearly  so,  with  his  informing 
his  son  Timothy  of  his  approaching  martyrdom),*  where  we  might 
reasonably  expect  the  most  explicit  and  ample  directions  respecting 
so  grave  and  important  a  matter,  not  a  word  is  said  on  the  sub- 
ject. So  far  from  it,  the  apostle,  "  as  an  appropriate  designation 
of  their  office  and  character,"  calls  them  "  bishops^^ — he  speaks  of 
"the  flock"  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers 
— he  charges  them  to  "  take  heed  to  themselves  and  to  all  the 
flock,"  and  to  "  feed  the  Church  of  God,"'  etc. :  but  he  utters  not 
a  word  from  which  it  can  be  inferred  that  they  either  were,  or  ex- 
pected to  be,  under  the  permanent  direction  and  control  of  an 
ecclesiastical  superiorT^ 

Of  the  last  of  the  orders  enumerated  Eph.  4  :  11,  namely,  ^'- pro- 
phets,''^  and  ^'■pastors''''  or  "  teachers,^''  we  remark,  that  their  titles, 
viewed  in  connection  with  what  is  denoted  in  the  terms  "  helps,^^ 
governments,^^  etc.  in  1  Cor.  12  :  28,  as  constituting  their  respective 
functions,  do  not  enable  us  to  assign  to  each  the  precise  posi- 
tion held  by  them  respectively  in  the  New  Testament  Church. 
That  those  to  whom  the  apostle  wrote,  however,  were  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  character  of  these  gifts,  and  required  no  expla- 
nation of  terms  which  to  us  have  become  obscure  and  of  uncertain 
import,  is  evident  from  the  very  brevity  with  which  he  incident- 
ally alludes  to  them.  And  this  circumstance  too,  we  add,  furnishes 
to  our  mind  convincing  proof  that  they  were  designed  not  to  ex- 
tend beyond  the  limits  of  the  apostolic  age.  Otherwise  each  one  for 
himself  had  been  made  to  stand  out  in  bold  relief,  as  a  guide  to  the 
Church  in  all  future  time. 

Still,  it  may  be  observed  in  regard  to  the  functions  of  the  "p-o- 
phets,^^  TTpo(j)f]Ta^,  that  to  them  appertained  the  province  of  preach- 
ing, exhortation,  etc.,  for  purposes  of  edification  and  comfort,^  not 

(I)  Acts  13  :  1-3.     (-2)  2  Tim.  4  :  6,  7,  8.     (3)  Acts  20  :  17-28.     (4)  1  Cor.  14  :  3. 
*  Dr.  Snodgrass,  on  Apost.  Succ,  pp.  157,  158. 


155 

only  ;  but  also  to  predict  future  events  ;  as  of  the  prophetic  impulse 
under  which  Agabus,  after  the  manner  of  the  ancient  prophets,  is 
seen  accompanying  with  a  symbolic  action  the  prediction  that  the 
owner  of  Paul's  girdle  would  be  bound  by  the  Jews  at  Jerusalem :  * 
a  species  of  inspiration  which  we  must  unquestionably  ascribe  to 
the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost,* 

Under  the  article  of  *'  Ae/jjs,"  doubtless  may  be  ranked,  for  one, 
those  endowed  with  the  "  gift"  of  "  discerning  of  spirits  ;"  an  en- 
dowment indispensable  to  the  safety  of  that  miraculous  age  against 
imposture.  For  example — The  "  spirit  of  divination"  in  the  Py- 
thoness "  which  brought  her  masters  much  gain  by  soothsaying," « 
very  nearly  simulated  with  the  prophetic  gift  of  Agabus.  Hence 
the  danger  to  the  Church  of  being  imposed  upon  by  false  prophets, 
and  the  special  provision  against  it  by  the  above  gift. 

The  office  of  "  teachers^''  AiddoKaXoi,  probably  embraced,  in  ad- 
dition to  their  teaching  generally  in  the  Christian  Church,  the 
function  of  "  interpreters"  ^  to  those  who  "  spake  with  tongues." 
And,  inasmuch  as  "  the  spirits  of  the  prophets  were  subject  to  the 
prophets,"  ^  Paul,  in  view  of  the  scene  of  confusion  and  tumult 
which  he  describes  as  having  taken  place  in  their  assemblies,  when 
"  every  one  had  a  psalm,  had  a  doctrine,  had  a  tongue,  had  an  in- 
terpretation ;"  ^  pointed  to 

The  "joa5tors,"f  TToi[ievag  (who,  as  having  the  oversight  of  the 
flock,  and  in  whom  might  have  centered  most,  if  not  all,  the  other 
gifts),  when  he  commanded,  "  Let  all  things  be  done  decently  and 
in  order;"'  which  command  implies  the  existence  in  the  Church  of 
government  and  discipline,  and,  of  course,  of  some  office-bearers 
to  exercise  it. 


(1)  Acts  QO  :  23.       (2)     Acts  16  :  16.      (3)   1  Cor.    14:27,28.      (4)   1  Cor.  14:32.      (6)    lb,   v.  26 
(8)  lb.,  V.  40. 

*  See  pp.  109,  110.  T  See  page  138. 


156 


SECTION    IV. 

Of  Elders,  Ruling  Elders,  and  Deacons. — Proof,  from  Paul's  directions  to  Timothy  and  Ti- 
tus respecting  them,  that  they  were  to  constitute  the  boundary- line  which  divides 
the  extraordinary  and  temporary  ministry  of  the  Church,  from  that  which  was  in- 
tended for  its  ordinary  and  permanent  use,  to  the  end  of  time,  as  drawn,  First,  from 
the  directions  given  them — Second,  from  the  personal  qualifications  specified. — To 
be  inducted  into  office  by  the  laying  on  of  hands. — The  standard  model  ministry  of 
the  Church,  two  orders  only. 

It  only  remains  that  we  now  speak  of  those  styled  Elders^  Ruling 
Elders^  and  Deacons.  It  will  be  found  that  they,  as  those  about 
whom  Timothy  and  Titus  were  directed  by  Paul  to  employ  their 
minds  and  hands  as  connected  with  the  ministry  of  Christ's 
Church,  were  designed  to  constitute  THE  BOUNDAEY-LINE 
which  divides  the  special,  extraordinary^  and  temporary  ministry  of 
that  Church,  from  that  which  was  intended  for  its  ordinary  and 
permanent  use,  to  the  close  of  time. 

Our  first  business  here  is,  to  collect  together  the  various  items 
of  instruction  given  by  Paul  to  Timoth}^  and  Titus,  in  which  it  is 
admitted  that  the  work  of  ordination  was  assigned  to  them  by  the 
laying  on  of  hands.     They  are  the  following  : — 

To  Timothy.  "  The  things  that  thou  hast  heard  of  me  among 
many  witnesses,  commit  thou  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to 
teach  others  also."  (2  Tim.  2  :  2.) 

To  Titus.  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou 
ghouldest  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee." — 
(Tit.  1:5.) 

To  Timothy.  "  This  is  a  true  saying.  If  a  man  desire  the  office 
of  a  bishop,  he  desireth  a  good  work,"  etc.  (1  Tim.  3  :  1.)  Again : 
"  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well,  bo  counted  worthy  of  double  honor, 
especially  they  who  labor  in  word  and  doctrine." — (1  Tim.  5  :  17.) 
Again :  "  Likewise  must  the  deacons  first  be  proved"  ;  then  let 
them  use  the  ojice  of  a  deacon,  etc.  (1  Tim.  3  :  8-10.)  And,  finally 
says  the  apostle  to  him,  "  Lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man^ 

Now,  in  reference  to  these  Pauline  directions  to  Timothy  and 
Titus  we  remark  in  the  first  place,  that  they  indicate  a  most  mark- 
ed and  emphatic  difference  in  the  MODE  OF  ministerial  designa- 
tion by  tvhich  they  were  to  be  guided,  compared  with  that  peculiar  to 
all  others — apostles,  prophets,  evangelists,  pastors,  or  teachers,  etc. 
Yes.  The  age  of  that  heaven-inspiring  gift  to  the  Church — "  dis- 
cerning of  sjjir  its,' ^  was  about  to  pass  away.  The  directions  of  Paul 
to  Timothy,  Let  the  "  deacons  first  be  proved,^'  etc  :  "  Lay  hands 
suddenly  on  no  man,"  etc.,  furnishes  a  clear  intimation  of  the 
apostle's  conviction,  that  the  ministers  of  Christ's  Church  were  no 
longer,  as  in  the  case  of  Timothy,  to  rely  upon  the  miraculous 
agency  of  a  ^^ prophecy,^''  to  announce  the  fact  to  themselves  or  to 


157 

the  Cliurcli.  Indeed,  it  were  the  same  as  though  Paul  had  said  to 
them,  '  Ilereafter,  of  those  who  are  to  be  set  apart  as  office-bearers 
in  the  Church,  there  should  "  be  prudent  delay,  until  a  vigilant 
and  prayerful  observation  shall  have  clearly  discovered  those  inti- 
mations of  the  Divine  will"  respecting  them,  "  which  are  to  he  ga- 
thered from  the  ordinary  sources  of  providential  direction.  Let  not 
your  hand,"  therefore,  "be  laid  upon  an  individual  until  you  can 
nave  reasonable  satisfaction  that  God's  hand,  qualifying  him  for 
the  work,  has  preceded  yours,  ordaining  him  to  its  discharge. 
You  then  perform  an  obedient  and  intelligent  service.  You  put 
your  hands  to  God''s  hand,  and  by  your  deliberate  concurrence  in 
the  work,  you  help  to  clear  the  path  and  cheer  the  mind  of  the 
candidate  for  office,  who  may  be  trembling  under  a  sense  of  its 
responsibility,  and  seeking  the  comforting  indications  of  Divine 
guidance  in  the  conclusions  and  countenance  of  those  who  are 
more  experienced  than  yourself* 

And,  the  evidence  confirmatory  of  this  change  in  the  mode  of 
designation  to  office — if,  indeed,  such  evidence  were  wanted — may 
be  gathered  yV'om  those  qualifications  so  minutely  particularized 
Jyy  the  apostle.,  as  pr^e-requisites  therefor.  In  the  case  of  a  bishop, 
they  embraced  the  following  twenty-three  particulars  :  "A  bishop 
must  be  blameless,  the  husband  of  one  wife,  vigilant,  sober,  of  good 
behavior,  given  to  hospitality,  apt  to  teach ;  not  given  to  wine, 
no  striker,  not  greedy  of  filthy  lucre ;  but  patient,  not  a  brawler, 
not  covetous ;  one  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house,  having  his  chil- 
dren in  subjection  with  all  gravity  ;  (for  if  a  man  know  not  how 
to  rule  his  own  house,  how  shall  he  take  care  of  the  Church  of 
God  ?)  not  a  novice,  lest  being  hfted  up  with  pride,  he  fall  into  the 
condemnation  of  the  devil.  Moreover,  he  must  have  a  good  report 
of  them  which  are  without,  lest  he  fall  into  reproach,  and  the 
snare  of  the  devil,"*  He  must  also  be,  "  not  self-willed,  not  soon 
angry,  a  lover  of  good  men,  just,  holy,  temperate,  holding  fast  the 
faithful  word  as  he  hath  been  taught,  that  he  may  be  able  by 
sound  doctrine,  both  to  exhort  and  convince  the  gainsayers."'  In 
the  case  of  a  deacon.^  take  the  following :  He  "  must  be  grave,  not 
double-tongued,  not  given  to  much  wine,  not  greedy  of  filthy 
lucre,  holding  the  mystery  of  the  faith  in  a  pure  conscience,"  etc' 
Surely,  the  presence  in  the  Church  of  miraculous  guidance,  if 
continued  heyond  the  limit  here  'prescribed  to  it^  had  rendered 
superfluous  such  marks  or  signs  of  guidance  in  the  premises.  But, 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  Pauline  instructions  and  directions 
here  laid  down,  and  the  qualifications  specified  as  indispensable 
to  a  title  to  office,  Timothy  and  Titus,  with  the  churches,  could 
not  pther  than  infer,  that  they  had  at  length  arrived,  through  the 
miraculously  appointed  agency  of  the  apostles  and  their  coadju- 
tors., at  that  "  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son 

(1)  1  Tim.  3  :  1-7.     (2)  Tit.  1  :  6-9.     (3)  t  Tim.  3  :  8.  9. 
*  Stratten's  Argument  against  Apostolic  succession.     London,  1845, 


158 

of  God,"  by  which  they  had  grown  "  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto 
the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ."  That 
"  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,"  of  which  "  Jesua 
Christ  himself  is  the  chief  corner-stone,"  and  upon  which,  in  all 
future  time,  the  Church  was  to  be  "  built,"  HAD  NOW  BEEN 
LAID,  BROAD  AND  DEEP*  The  churches  planted  by  the 
apostles  had  seen  their  miraculously  endowed  and  inspired  found- 
ers and  guides,  one  after  another,  cut  down  by  death.  And,  Paul 
had  written  to  Timothy,  informing  him  that  the  time  of  his  de- 
parture was  at  hand — that  he  had  finished  his  course.  Ilence,  the 
instructions  etc.  regarding  the  future  ministry  of  the  Church, 
as  above,  while  they  served  as  a  note  of  assurance  on  the  one 
hand  that  she  was  not  to  be  left  in  a  state  of  perpetual  widow- 
hood; on  the  other,  she  was  furnished  with  a  line  of  demarkation, 
wherewith  to  determine  at  what  point  ended  the  extraoi'dinary 
and  temporary^  and  at  what  commenced  the  ordinary  and  perma- 
nent ministry  of  the  Church. 

As  to  the  mode  of  induction  into  office^  the  rite  of  "  laying  on 
of  hands,"  as  an  action  symbolic  of  the  concurrence  of  the  human 
with  the  Divine  will  as  practiced  by  the  apostles  and  others  after 
the  example  of  Christ,  and  with  which  they  were  so  familiar,  not 
having  been  abrogated,  was  adopted  as  a  standing  rule. 

And  now,  as  to  the  orders  about  which  Timothy  and  Titus 
were  to  employ  their  minds  and  hands,  in  forming  the  model 
for  the  future  permanent  service  of  the  Church.  These,  we  have 
said,  were  the  following:  elders  or  preslyyter-hishops^  and  deacons. 
The  evidence  that  no  others  are  included  in  the  filial  instruc- 
tions given  to  them,  will  be  furnished  in  the  next  section. 

♦  If  we  except  the  Apocalypse  of  the  apostle  John,  which  was  written  a.d.  96,  the 
entire  canon  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures — the  four  Gospels,  the  Acts,  and  the 
eighteen  Epistles,  had  all  been  sent  abroad  for  the  instruction  of  the  churches,  prior  to 
the  death  of  Paul.  Some  writers  think  this  doubtful,  as  to  the  epistle  of  Jude,  which 
was  written  in  the  year  64,  and  the  2d  epistle  of  Peter,  in  65.  The  circumstance,  how- 
ever, of  the  absence  of  any  data  upon  which  to  determine  the  precise  chronology  of  the 
death  of  Paul,  leaves  for  the  support  of  the  above  doubt  no  other  ground  than  that  <rf 
conjecture. 


m 


SECTION    V. 

Proof,  that  the  dual  orders  of  Presbyter-Bishop  and  Deacon  were  to  constitute  the  ordi- 
nary and  permanent  ministry  of  the  Church,  as  derived,  First,  from  the  interchange- 
able use  of  the  names  Elder,  irpio-/SvTepos,  and  Bishop,  cniaKoiros,  to  denote  the  same 
office — Second,  from  the  two  classes  of  functions,  those  of  teaching,  preaching,  and 
governing,  and  those  of  ruling  only,  common  to  ''  the  presbytery." — Passages  quoted 
in  illustration. — Remarks. — Mode  of  appointment,  that  of  popular  election,  or  elec- 
tion by  the  Church. — Import  of  the  term,  x'^^P"'^'"'^'"'- — Paul's  instructions  to  Timo- 
thy.— This  office  in  the  Church  of  Christ  shown  to  be  most  reasonable  in  itself. — 
Advantages  of. — Further  proof  of  the  dual  orders  of  Presbyter  and  Deacons,  as  drawn, 
1st,  from  the  answer  to  the  objection  urged  against  the  mixed  nature  of  the  func- 
tions of  the  eldership,  etc. — 2d,  from  the  Pauline  address  to  the  Church  at  Philippi. 
— Scriptural  account  of  the  office  of  Deacon. 

That  tlie  two  orders  of  elders  or  presbyter -bishops  and  deacons 
only,  were  included  in  the  final  instructions  given  by  Paul  to  Timothy 
and  Titus,  will  appear  from  the  fact,  first,  that  two  of  the  titles  men- 
tioned therein,  viz. :  elder,  TTpeajSyrepog,  and  bishop,  emoKo-rxog,  are  ap- 
plied interchangeably,  to  denote  the  same  office,  that  of  presbyter- 
bishop.  In  this  form  their  application  had  been  of  long-standing 
use  in  the  Church,  In  the  20th  chapter  of  the  Acts,  those  whom 
Paul  exhorts,  (v.  28)  to  "  take  heed  to  themselves  and  to  all  the 
flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  them  overseers,^^ 
emaiwTToi,  bishops;  are  the  same  with  the  TrpeofivTEpoi,  elders  of 
Ephesus  (v.  17),  whom  he  had  called  thence  to  meet  him  at  Mile- 
tus. So,  in  defining  the  constituent  elements  of  the  office  of 
"  elders,"  -rrpefj/Sf repot,  who  were  to  be  ordained  in  every  city  ;  the 
apostle,  in  his  instructions  both  to  Timothy  and  Titus  (1  Tim.  3  : 
2  ;  Titus,  1  :  7),  says,  "  A  bishop,  imoKOTTog,  must  be  blameless," 
etc.  The  title  elder,  indicated  age,  as  one  of  the  qualifications  de- 
sirable for  those  who  were  to  discharge  the  functions  denoted  by 
the  other — bishop  or  overseer. 

There  is,  however,  yet  another  important  aspect  in  which  this 
title,  elder,  is  to  be  considered.  The  New  Testament  use  of  it  de- 
monstrates, that  while  in  each  church  there  were  a  number  who 
bore  that  title,  there  was,  nevertheless,  a  distinction  in  their  re- 
spective functions.^  The  government  and  discipline  of  the  Church 
were  common  to  all ;  but  a  portion  of  them  (and  that  the  smaller 
portion)  also  taught,  or  ^'■preached  the  loord^''  etc.  Nor  is  it  difficult 
to  recognize  their  distinctive  functions,  as,  we  think,  the  follow- 
ing passages  will  verify.     But  let  us  refer, 

1st.  To  those  passages  which  prove  a  plurality  of  elders  in  each 
church  : — Acts  14  :  23.  "  Thus" — Barnabas  and  Saul  "  ordained 
them  cldzrs,  TrpeaftvTeQoi,  in  every  church"     Titus  1:5.   "  For  this 

*  See  Appendix,  Article,  Ruling  Elders. 


160 

cause  left  I   thee   in   Crete,  that    thou  shouldest  ordain  elders^ 
npeolivTepot,  in  every  city,  as  I  had  appointed  thee." 

2d.  Passages  which  prove  that  some        3d.  Those  passages  which  speak   of 
of  these  elders  exercised   government     ciders  as  teaching  akd  governing : — 
only  : —  1  Tim.  5  :  17.     "  Let  the  elders  that 

Rom.  12  :  8.     "  He  that  rtUeth.,  vrith    rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double 
diligence."'  honor ;  especially  they  who  labor  in 

lleb.  13  :  17.  "  Obey  them  that  word  and  doctrine." 
have  the  ride  over  you,  and  submit  Heb.  13  :  7.  "Remember  them  which 
yourselves  :  for  they  watch  for  your  have  the  rule  over  you,  who  have  spoken 
souls,  as  they  that  must  give  account :  unto  you  the  word  of  God:  whose  faith 
that  they  may  do  it  with  joy  and  not  follow,  considering  the  end  of  their 
with  grief."  conversation  :  Jesus  Christ,"  etc. 

1  Tim.  5  :  17.  "  Let  the  elders  that 
rule  well,  be  counted  worthy  of  double 
honor,"'  etc. 

James  5  :  14.  "  Is  any  sick  among 
among  you,  let  him  call  for  the  elders 
of  the  Church,"  etc. 

4th.  The  passage  which  speaks  of  both. 

Heb.  13  :  24.     "  Salute  all  them  that  have  ilie  rule  over  you" 
etc. 

These  passages  are  explicit.  They  affirm,  in  the  first  place,  that 
elders  were  appointed  not  only  in  every  city,  but  in  every  church. 
And,  in  the  second  place,  that,  inasmuch  as  the  "  double  honor" 
due  to  the  college  of  "  elders  in  every  church,"  is  declared  to  be- 
long "  especially''''  to  those  who  "  labored  in  word  and  doctrine," 
the  inference  clearly  is,  that,  of  "  the  elders  that  ruled  well,"  only 
apart  of  them  labored  in  word  and  doctrine  ;  in  other  words,  that 
there  are  ruling  elders,  and  among  these,  teaching  elders.  If  to 
this  it  be  objected,  that  v.  18, — "  thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  ox  that 
treadeth  out  the  corn,"  requires  the  "  double  honor"  spoken  of 
in  reference  to  these  elders  to  be  interpreted  of  'the  honor  of 
maintenance  ;'  we  reply,  that  while  it  may  sometimes  denote  pay 
or  wages,  and  even  that  it  may  bear  that  meaning  in  this  place ; 
it  by  no  means  invalidates  the  ground  upon  which  is  claimed  a 
difference  in  their  functions.  "-The  apostle,  on  this  supposition, 
enjoins,  that  ample  recompense  be  given  to  elders  who  spend  a 
portion  of  their  time  in  ruling  well,  and  especially  to  those  elders 
who  occupy  themselves  more  entirely  with  the  affairs  of  the 
Church,  by  not  only  ruling  well,  but  also  laboring  in  word  and 
doctHneP  But,  to  limit  the  interpretation  to  this  sense,  involves 
one  of  two  consequences ;  either,  that  the  "  double  honor,"  to 
which  they  are  entitled,  is  to  be  signalized  by  dollars  and  cents — 
a  view,  to  say  the  least,  wholly  unworthy  of  the  sacredness  of  their 
functions  ;  or,  "  that  the  distinction  lies,  not  in  the  '  order  of  offi- 
cers, but  in  the  degree  of  their  dihgence,  faithfulness,  and  eminence, 
in  laboriously  fulfilling  their  ministerial  work,  to  the  edihcation  of 
the  Church ;'  in  which  case,  it  follows,  that  ministerial  ineiliciencj, 
or  it  may  be  even  indolence,  is  worthy  of  "  double  honor"  ! 


161 

Again.  Upon  no  principle  of  Biblical  hcrmeneutics  can  we 
"make  the  latter  clause  of  the  verse  expository  of  the  former,"  as 
though  the  apostle  meant  by  ruling  well  to  mean  teaching.  The 
very  structure  of  the  passage  forbids  such  a  construction.  "  It  is 
not  said,  'especially  labor,'  as  if  to  mark  the  degree  of  laboring; 
but  '  especially  they  who  labor,'*  fixing  attention  on  certain  per- 
sons as  distinguishahle  from  other  persons — one  section  of  elders 
from  another  section  of  elders."  Indeed,  this  is  a  mode  of  ex- 
pression conmion  alike  to  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  Take  the 
following  in  illustration.  David  says,  "  I  was  a  reproach  to  mine 
enemies,  but  especially  among  my  neighbors,'"  etc.  Festus  said, 
*'  Wherefore  I  have  brought  him  (Paul)  before  you,  and  especially 
before  thee,  O  King  Agrippa,""  etc.  We  are  to  "do  good  unto 
all  men,  especialhj  unto  them  who  are  of  the  household  of  faith." ' 
Christ  "  is  the  Savior  of  all  men,  specially  of  those  that  believe."* 
We  are  to  "  provide  for  our  own,  and  especially  for  those  of  our 
own  house."  *  Paul's  charge  to  Timothy,  "  The  cloak  that  I  left 
at  Troas, — bring  with  thee,  and  the  books,  but  especially  the  parch- 
ments." "  Why  then,  we  ask,  should  a  sense  be  given  to  the  pas- 
sage now  before  ns,  different  from  its  obvious  import  as  a  mark  of 
discrimination  in  those  here  quoted?  "Paul  first  mentions  all 
the  elders  who  rule  ivell^  and  then  singles  out  from  these  certain  of 
their  number  who  also  labored  in  word  and  doctrine.  They  were 
all  ruling  elders,  but  some  of  them  were  also  teaching  elders ;  and 
to  these  latter  his  directions  especially  applied." 

Evidently  then,  the  fact  of  an  eldership,  as  embodying  the  idea 
of  a  plurality  or  association  of  rulers  over  a  single  church,  with 
distinctive  functions, — some  ruling  only,  while  others  both  ruled 
and  taught, — is  clearly  maintained  in  the  New  Testament  scrip- 
tures. And,  as  shown  above,f  the  names  elder  and  bishop  being 
used  interchangeably  to  denote  the  same  office,  the  only  mark  de- 
notive  of  a  distinction  among  them,  was  that  of  the  "double  honor" 
due  to  the  latter  over  the  former.  We  read  of  elders  in  each  of 
the  churches  of  Jerusalem,  Ephesus,  and  Philippi.  But  though 
some  of  the  New  Testament  churches,  when  first  planted,  were 
favored  with  the  extraordinary  ministrations  of  apostles  and  evan- 
gelists, yet  they  enjoyed  that  distinction  only  for  a  limited  period, 
and  at  short  intervals.  Now  that  the  Church,  under  their  culture, 
had  attained  to  "perfect"  manhood,  "to  the  measure  of  the  stat- 
ure of  the  fullness  of  Christ,"  their  superior  functions  being  no 
longer  necessary,  not  only,  but  being  absolutely  incommunicahle ; 
gave  place,  by  apostolical  appointment,  to  a  system  of  ecclesi- 
astical jurisprudence,  which,  while  it  was  fully  adapted  to  meet  all 
the  wants  of  the  Church  in  the  matter  of  her  spiritual  edification 
through  all  time,  so  reduced  it  to  a  platform  of  EQUALITY,  as  to 

(1)  Vs.  31  :  1 1.     (2)  Acts  25  :  26.    See  also  chap.  26  :  3.     (3)  Gal.  0:10.     (4)  1  Tim.  4  :  10.     (5)  H).. 
6  :  8.     (fi)  2  Tim.  4  :  13. 

*  It  is  not  said  oi  fi'iKiira  K-on-itoirtf,  but  fiiXiara  ui  KOiriCivTCi.  f  See  p.   159. 

11 


162 

exclude  all  emulation  after  a  "  chief  seat,"  '  all  aspirations  after 
"  the  pre-eminence," '  all  lording  it  "  over  God's  heritage."  ="  Ac- 
cordingly, in  order  to  the  security  of  this  end,  we  remark. 

First,  that  the  mode  of  appointment  of  these  office-bearers  was, 
that  of  popular  election^  by  which  we  mean,  election  hy  the  Church. 
Instance,  1st,  the  C9,se  of  Matthias,  who,  with  Joses,  was  not  only 
nominated^*  but  elected''*  by  the  suffrage  of  the  assembled  body  of 
believers.  On  this  passage,  Chrysostom  says,  "  Peter  did  every 
thing  here  with  common  consent ;  nothing,  by  his  own  will  and 
authority.  He  left  the  judgment  to  the  multitude,  to  secure  the 
respect  to  the  elected,  and  to  free  himself  from  every  invidious  re- 
flection." After  quoting  the  words,  "  they  appointed  two,"  he 
adds,  "  he  did  not  himself  appoint  them,  it  was  the  act  of  aZi."f 
So,  2d,  in  the  case  of  the  seven  deacons.  The  proposal  by  the 
apostles  for  their  appointment,  meeting  the  approbation  of  "  the 
whole  multitude"  of  the  faithful,  "they  chose  Stephen,""  etc.  So, 
3d,  of  the  election  of  delegates,  companions  for  the  apostles,  etc.,  hy 
Hie  Church.  This  was  undeniably  true  of  the  mission  of  Paul  and 
Barnabas  to  Antioch.  It  was  the  act  of  "  the  apostles  and  elders, 
urith  the  ivhole  church.^''''  And,  Paul  speaks  of  "  the  messengers  of 
the  churches"  as  being  "  chosen-  oj  the  churches,^^  ;:^eipoTov7;0«f  vtto 
TO)v  ekkXtjolojv,  "to  travel  with  him,"'  The  good  report  even  of 
Timothy  by  "  the  brethren^''  of  Lystra  and  Iconium,  would  seem  to 
have  been  looked  upon  by  the  apostle  as  a  confirmation  of  "  the 
prophecy  which  went  before"  respecting  him,  and,  doubtless,  led 
to  his  selection  of  him  as  his  "  work-fellow."  *  The  same  may  be  in- 
ferred in  regard  to  Titus,'"  Silvanus,"  Mark,"  Clemens,"  Epaphras," 
etc.  And,  with  such  precedents  before  us  in  these  premises,  we 
think  it  no  infringement  upon  the  laws  of  fair  inference  to  con- 
clude, that  a  similar  mode  was  observed  by  the  Church,  in  the 
election,  4th,  Of  elders,  TrpirrfivTeQoc,  or  presbyters.  For,  conced- 
ing,— as  we  do — that  the  apostles  in  some  instances  might  have 
nominated,  not;  only,  but  actually  appointed  these  officers, — for  ex- 
ample, in  the  case  of  Stephanus  at  Corinth,  the  members  of  whose 
household  upon  their  conversion  to  Christianity  becoming  also 
the  first  to  fill  the  offices  of  the  Church,'' — yet,  with  the  above 

(n  Luke  20  :  40.  (2)  3  John  9.  (3)  1  Pet.  6  :  3.  (4)  Acts  1  :  23,  comp.  with  vv.  15,  16.  (5)  Ih.  1  : 
26.  (6)  Acts  6  :  1-6.  (7)  Acts  15  :  22.  (8)  2  Cor.  8  :  19,  23.  (9)  Acts  16  :  2,  3  ;  Rom.  16  :  21. 
(10)  2  Cor.  8  :  23.  (11)  1  Ihess.  1  : 1.  (12)  Coloss.  4  :  10  ;  1  Pet.  5  :  13.  (13)  Philip.  4  :  3.  (14)  Co- 
loss.  1  :  7.     (15)  1  Cor.  16  :  15,  16. 

*  "  Mosheim  understands  the  phrase,  liosxtv  KXdpovg  ourwv,  to  express  the  casting  of  a 
popular  vole  by  the  Christians.  To  express  the  casting  of  lots,  according  to  this  autlior, 
the  verb  should  have  been  i(Ja\oy,  as  in  Matt.  27  :  35;  Luke  23  :  24 ;  John  10  :  34; 
Mark  15  :  24.  Comp.  Septuagint,  Ps.  22  :  19  ;  Joel  3:3;  Neh.  3  :  10  ;  which  also 
accords  with  the  usage  of  Homer  in  similar  cases.  (Iliad,  23,  352.  Odyss.  14,  209) . 
But  the  phrase,  Ucokcv  KX>)povi,  according  to  this  author,  expresses  the  casting  of  a  popu- 
lar vote  ;  the  term,  icXOfo"s,  being  used  in  the  sense  of  xpn'pof,  a  suffrage,  or  vote,  so  that 
what  the  evangelist  meant  to  say  was  simply  this  :  '  And  those  who  were  present  gave 
their  votes.'  »  (De  Rebus  Christ.,  Sacc.  1.  ^  14.  Note) .  See  Coleman's  Apost.  and 
Prim.  Chh.  p.  54. 

t  Horn,  ad  locum.  Vol.  IX.,  p.  25.  Comp.  also  Cyprian,  Ep.  68.  Coleman,  pp. 
55,  56. 


163 

precedents  present  to  tlieir  minds,  and  especially  that  of  the  model 
organization  at  Jerusalem,  it  is  not  sapposable  that  either  they  or 
the  churches  could  have  lost  sight  of  the  long-standing  usage  of 
election  by  popular  suffrage.  We  shall  assume,  then,  that  thus  it 
was  with  those  elders,  rrpea/Surepot,  appointed  by  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas at  Lystra,  Iconium,  and  Antioch.'  The  question  here  turns 
wholly  upon  the  interpretation  of  the  term,  ;:^;tiporox'?/aav-ec,  "when 
they  had  ordained,"  or,  as  in  the  margin,  ^'■when  with  lifting  up  of 
hands  they  had  chosen  them^  Two  points  are  here  involved.  First, 
whether  the  choice  was  limited  to  the  two  apostles':  and  second, 
whether  the  act  was  an  ordination  or  consecration.  That  it  was 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  we  argue, 

1st,  From  the  fact  that  the  same  word  is  used  in  reference  to 
the  companion  of  Paul  mentioned,  2  Cor.  8  :  23,  who  is  declared 
to  have  been  x^i'QorovTjdeig,  "  chosen  of  the  churches." 

2d,  From  the  current  import  of  the  term  x^K^orovelv  :  *  it  means, 
to  give  a  vote  by  stretching  out  the  hand  :  to  choose^  to  elect ;  and 
is  thus  used  both  in  classic  Greek,  and  primitive  ecclesiastical 
writers.  "  Demosthenes  exhorts  the  Athenians  in  popular  assembly 
to  elect,  xeLQOTovr]aat,  ten  men  to  go  on  an  embassy  to  the  The- 
bans."f  "  It  will  become  you,"  says  Ignatius  to  the  Church  at 
Philadelphia,  "  as  the  Church  of  God,  to  choose^  ;^;£fpoTov^aa(,  some 
deacon  to  go  there,"  that  is,  to  the  Church  at  Antioch.":};  Again, 
To  the  Church  at  Smyrna,  "  It  will  be  fitting,  and  for  the  honor 
of  God,  that  your  Church  elect,  x^i^poTovrjoai,  some  worthy  delegate," 
etc.  II  ...  "  The  Council  of  Antioch  forbids  a  bishop  to  be 
chosen,  x^i^QO'ovelodo),  without  the  presence  of  the  synod,  and  of  the 
metropolitan."!  .  ,  .  "  Again,  in  the  Greek  version  of  the  Codex 
Ecclesiae  Africanee,  the  heading  of  the  XlXth  Canon  is,  that  a 
bishop  should  not  be  chosen,  ;^;eiporovei(T0at,  except  by  the  multi- 
tude, drcb  TToXXojv.^l  Finally,  to  the  same  effect  is  also  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  Tyndal :  "  We  read  only  of  the  apostles,  consti- 
tuting elders  by  the  suffr-ages  of  the  people,  Acts  14  :  23  ;  which,  as 
it  is  the  genuine  signification  of  the  Greek  word,  x^-Qorovijaavreg, 
so  it  is  accordingly  interpreted  by  Erasmus,  Beza,  Diodati,  and 
even  English  Bibles,  till  the  Episcopal  correction  [?],  which  leaves 
out  the  words,  by  election,  as  well  as  the  marginal  notes,  which  af- 
firm that  the  apostles  did  not  thrust  pastors  into  the  Church 
through  a  lordly  superiority,  but  chose  and  placed  them  there  by  the 
voice  of  the  congregation.""^^  Tyndal's  translation  is  as  follows : 
"  And  when  they  had  ordained  them  seniours  by  election,  in  every 

(1)  Acts  14  :  21-23. 

*  Robinson  renders  the  word  to  choose  by  vote,  to  appoint.  So  Parkhurst  on  "  Xtiporo- 
v'.o>; — from  x-'P^  ^he  hand,  and  Tcroi,a,  perf.  mid.  of  rtivw,  to  extend,  stretch  oiU.^^  (Park- 
hurst's  Gr.  Lex.,  which  see.) 

t  Oration  on  the  Crown,  ^  5.5,  and  §  9. 

t  Ad  Phil.  c.  10.  II  Ad  Smym.  c.  11. 

§   Cone.  Ant.  c.  19.  •[[  Cited  by  Suicer,  ad  verbum. 

**  Rights  of  the  Church,    p.  358. 


164 

congregation,  after  they  had  preyde  and  fasted,  they  commennd 
them  to  God,  on  whom  they  beleved."  It  is  reasonable  therefore 
to  conclude, 

od.  That  in  the  Pauline  instructions  to  Timothy  and  Titus  in 
reference  to  the  appointment  of  officers  in  the  churches  of  Ephesus 
and  Crete,  together  with  the  manner  in  which  the  apostle  addresses 
himself  to  the  whole  Church  in  the  epistles  directed  to  them ;  the 
well-understood  import  of  the  term  ;^£fpoTomv  as  denotive  of  the 
doctrine  of  popular  suffrage,  taken  in  connection  with  the  general 
practice  of  the  churches  as  corresponding  therewith,  precluded  the 
necessity  of  any  further  specific  rules  to  that  end.* 

Finally,  in  reference  to  the  ecclesiastical  arrangement  predicated  of 
the  divinely-appointed  order  of  teaching  and  ruling  elders  in  each 
church,  and  which,  on  examination,  will  be  found  to  have  borne  a 
very  close  resemblance  to  that  of  the  synagogue  worship,  etc.  ;f — 
we  remark,  that,  while  it  has  the  sanction  of  Scripture,  as  we  have 
shown,  it  is  most  reasonable  in  itself. 

In  the  matter  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  a  choice  is  obviously  con- 
fined to  one  of  three  systems:  jurisdiction  by  the  members  of  the 
Church  generally  ;  by  the  minister  exclusivel}'" ;  or  by  a  company 
of  elders.  Now,  in  regard  to  the  first  of  these  systems,  while  it  is 
delightful  to  contemplate  that  each  member  of  the  mystical  body  of 
Christ  is  "  a  spiritual  ofiice-bearer" — being  "  made  kings  and 
priests  unto  God" '  to  "  offer  up  spiritual  sacrifices  by  Jesus 
Christ :" "  yet,  when  we  consider  on  the  one  hand  the  multiform 
secular  and  domestic  cares  devolving  on  each,  and  on  the  other 
the  numerous  instances  in  every  church  of  incompetency  to  manage 
its  affairs,  we  cannot  well  resist  the  conviction  of  a  want  of  wisdom 
in  such  an  arrangement.  Besides,  does  it  not  "  appear  somewhat 
anomalous  to  speak  of  a  society  superintending  itself"  ? — "  The 
Church  is  sometimes  compared  to  a  flock — sometimes  to  an  army 
— sometimes  to  a  kingdom ;  and  none  of  these  emblems  afford 
much  countenance  to  self-superintendence.  Where  is  the  flock,  in 
which  the  distinction  is  lost  between  the  sheep  and  shepherds  ? — 
where  the  army,  in  which  the  soldiers  are  indiscriminately  privates 
and  officers? — where  the  kingdom,  in  which  rulers  and  subjects 
are  convertible  terms  ?  Add  to  this,  the  almost  inevitable  heart- 
burnings, and  discord,  and  jealousies  incident  to  the  infirmities, 
prejudices,  and  party  interests  inseparable  from  miscellaneous 
legislation  and  the  exercise  of  discipline  on  this  hypothesis,  and  it 
is  difficult  to  repel  the  conviction,  that  it  cannot  be  according  to 
the  mind  of  the  Spirit.     And, 

The  apostolic  injunction  to  the  Hebrews,  "  Obey  them  that  have 

(1)  nev.  1  : 6.    (2)  1  Peter  2  :  5. 

*  See  the  whole  of  this  subject  more  fully  discussed  in  Coleman's  Apostolic  and  Prim- 
itive Church,  pp.  53-64. 

t  See  on  the  analogy  of  the  Christian  Church  to  the  Synagogue,  etc.  the  Rev.  Dr.  Addi- 
son Alexander's  new  work,  "Essays  on  the  Primitive  Church  Offices."  Essay  I.,  on 
Scripture  Elders.     (New  York,  Charles  Scribner,  1-1.5  Nassau  street.     1851.) 


165 

the  rule  over  you," '  very  naturally  reminds  us  of  "  a  body  of  super- 
intendents distinct  from  the  general  community,  and  can  hardly 
suppose  the  parties  who  are  addressed  to  wield  the  very  power 
they  are  exhorted  to  respect."  The  question,  then,  presents  itself : 
Is  this  right  to  "  rule,"  etc.,  exercised  by  the  minister  exclusively  ? 
It  requires  but  a  glance  at  the  numerous  and  complicated  elements 
of  labor  in  ever}^  church,  to  perceive  that  it  "cannot  be  the  ex- 
clusive trust  of  one  individual."  Its  concerns,  spiritual  and  secu- 
lar— private  and  public — domestic  and  foreign — pastoral  and  dis- 
ciplinary— viewed  in  connection  with  the  vast  responsibilities  as- 
sumed by  him  who  would  attempt  it,  would  "  give  occasion  for 
friends  sa^'ing  to  him,  as  Jethro  said  to  Moses,  on  seeing  all  that 
he  did  to  the  people  :  "  What  is  this  thing  that  thou  doest  to  the 
people  ?  why  sittest  thou  alone^  and  all  the  people  stand  by  thee 
from  morning  unto  even  ?  The  thing  that  thou  doest  is  not  good. 
Thou  wilt  surely  wear  away,  both  thou  and  this  people  that  is  with 
thee,  for  this  thing  is  too  heavy  for  thee  :  thou  art  not  able  to  perforin 

it  TUYSELF  ALONE."  ' 

And  yet  it  is  not  denied  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  minister  to 
take  the  oversight  of  all  the  flock  over  which  the  Holy  Ghost  has 
placed  him ;  but  this  by  no  means  supposes  that  such  a  superin- 
tendence is  of  itself  sufficient.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  un- 
divided power  is  a  perilous  temptation  to  imperfect  humanity  ;  and 
the  clergy  (as  may  be  seen  in  Part  III.  of  this  Treatise)  have  shown 
that  they  are  not  more  exempted  than  any  other  class  from  its  de- 
leterious  influence  on  the  temper  and  conduct.      If  there  had 

NEVER  BEEN  A  PoPE  OVER  A  SINGLE  CHURCH,  THERE  NEVER  WOULD 
HAVK  BEEN  A  PoPE  OVER  THE  ChRISTLA.N  WORLD  ! 

The  ecclesiastical  polity  of  the  New  Testament — that,  we  mean, 
designed  for  the  permanent  edification  and  upbuilding  of  the 
Church — we  believe  to  be  equally  removed  from  both  the  extremes 
here  brought  to  view.  It  forms  the  via  media  between  the  Scylla 
of  an  always  dubious  and  oftentimes  injurious  system  of  church 
democracy,  on  the  one  hand  ;  and  the  Chary bdis  of  an  antichristian 
spiritual  despotism,  on  the  other.  Having  for  its  basis  the  untram- 
meled  rights  of  the  elective  franchise,  each  church,  reserving  to  her- 
self the  independent  control  of  her  secular  concerns,  also  commits 
her  spiritual  interests,  not  to  one,  but  to  a  college  of  office-bearers, 
endowed  with  qualifications,  intellectual,  moral,  and  spiritual,  to 
fit  them  for  their  work  ;  and  with  "  gifts  differing  according  to  the 
grace  given  unto  them,"  adapted  to  all  the  exigencies  of  her  mili- 
tant state,  whether  doctrinal,  practical,  governmental,  or  disciplinary. 
Of  course,  these  office-bearers,  being  "  chosen  by  the  churches" 
under  the  guidance  of  an  all-wise  and  all-gracious  Providence,  is, 
in  its  character,  purely  representative,  and  hence  rigidly  republican. 

Finally,  on  the  subject  of  the  ordinary  atod  permanent  ministry 
of  the  Church,  we  now  proceed  to  show,  that  the  Pauline  instruc- 

(1)  Heb.  13  :  7,  17,  24.     (2)  Kxod.  18    H,  etc. 


166  , 

tions  to  Timothy  and  Titus  reduced  the  whole  number  of  minis- 
terial appointments  to  the  dual  orders  of  Presbyter-Bishop^  and 
Deacon.     This  will  appear,  if  we  consider, 

First,  the  use,  interchangeably,  of  the  titles,  Elder ^  TrpeofivTEpog, 
and  Bishop.,  emoKonog,  to  denote  the  same  office.  If  to  this  it  be 
objected,  that  it  is  irreconcilable  with  the  hypothesis  which  affirms 
the  existence,  under  one  order,  of  separate  and  distinct  functions 
— for  example,  that,  while  some  of  the  same  order,  besides  ruling, 
labored  also  in  word  and  doctrine,  others  ruled  only  : — we  reply, 
that  the  Scriptures  furnish  various  examples,  to  show  that  entirely 
separate  and  distinct  functions  may  formally  center  in  one  and  the 
same  person.  Thus,  Melchisedec  was  formally  a  Mng  and  a 
priest ;  David  was  formally  a  king  and  a  prophet  /  and  Peter, 
though  an  apostle.,  yet  styles  himself  "  an  elder,"  -ngeofivrepog,  in 
common  with  others  who  bore  that  appellation,  "  The  elders 
which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who  also  am  an  elder, ^^  etc'  In 
reference  to  this  last  instance,  we  remark,  that  it  is  clear  that  Peter 
Avas  so  an  elder  that  he  was  still  an  apostle  ;  and  so  an  apostle  that 
he  was  still  an  elder  ;  his  eldership  did  not  exclude  his  apostleship, 
nor  did  his  apostleship  swallow  up  his  eldership.  If  then  Peter, 
or  any  of  "the  twelve,"  could  be  formally  both  apostles  and  elders, 
what  hinders  but  that,  among  a  college  of  elders  or  presbyter-bish- 
ops, some  of  the  order,  besides  governing,  should  also  exercise  the 
functions  of  pastor  and  teacher  ?     But, 

Second.  A  reference  to  Paul's  address  to  the  Church  at  Philippi, 
will  afford  additional  light  and  confirmation  of  the  position  here 
laid  down.  The  facts,  we  premise,  in  reference  to  this  city,  Philip- 
pi,  that  the  apostle  had  been  directed  thither  by  express  revelation 
from  heaven ;"  that  it  was  the  city  in  which  he  had  first  opened  his 
commission,  and  in  which  he  had  established  the  first  Christian 
Church  founded  by  himself  in  all  Europe  /  and,  that  it  occupied 
the  place  of  "  the  chief  city  in  that  part  of  Macedonia ;"'  all  tend, 
from  the  prominence  of  its  position,  to  commend  it  to  our  special 
regard.  Nor  these  facts  only.  Lydia  and  her  household,  and  the 
Jailer  and  his  household,  were  enrolled  among  the  members  of  this 
Church.  Above  all,  this  Church,  more  than  all  others,  had  pre- 
served the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace,"^  not  only,  but 
had  ever  treasured  up  the  most  grateful  afiection  towards  the  apos- 
tle, of  which,  the  relief  they  afforded  him  when  in  distress,  and 
especially  when  suffering  as  a  prisoner  at  Eome,  is  the  evidence. 
Indeed,  of  the  two  churches,  that  of  Philippi  and  that  of  the  im- 
perial city,  Rome,  if  there  be  any  virtue  in  contrast,  it  is  not  difii- 
cult  to  determine  which  of  the  two  held  the  preponderance  in  the 
estimation  of  Paul.  We  will  place  the  two  passages  side  by  side. 
Speaking  of  the  Church  of 

(1)  1  Pet.  5  :  1.     (2)  AcU  16  :  9-12.     (3)  Acta  16  :  12.      (4)  Eph.  4 :  3. 


K  167 

ROME,  PHILIPPIANS, 

He   says : — "  Some    indeed    preach         He  says  : — "  I  thank  my  God  upon 

Christ   o(  envy  and  strife;   and  some  every  remembrance  of  you,  always  in 

also    of  good-will :    the    one    preach  every  prayer  of  mine  for  you  all,  mak- 

Christ  of  contention,  not  sincerely,  sup-  ing  request  vriih  joy,  for  your  fellowship 

posing  to  add  affliction  to  my  bonds  "^  in  the  gospel  from  the  first  day  until 

While  to  the  now."' 

We  come  now  to  observe,  that  the  date  assigned  to  Paul's  first 
visit  to  Philippi,  is  a.d.  53.  The  Epistle,  as  above,  was  written 
A.D.  62  or  63.  During  this  interval,  therefore  (about  ten  years), 
sufficient  scope  had  been  given  to  the  apostle  to  pe^jfect  its  organi- 
zation in  all  the  essentials  appertaining  to  the  standing  orders  of 
ministry  of  an  Apostolic  Church.  What,  then,  were  these  orders? 
His  epistle  opens  thus : — 

"  Paul  and  Timotheus,  the  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  all  the 
saints  in  Christ  Jesus  which  are  in  Philippi,  with  the  Bishops  and 
Deacons." 

Now,  it  is  here  to  be  particularly  noted  in  the  first  place,  that 
the  apostleship,  together  with  the  primitive  order  of  Evangelists, 
as  we  have  shown,*  from  their  special  and  extraordinary  character, 
not  being  transmissive,  and  hence,  extraneoiis  to  the  ordinary  and 
standing  ministry  of  the  Church,  cannot  be  included  in  the  above 
category.  Nor,  second,  can  it  be  supposed  that,  by  the  term 
"  Bishops,"  the  apostle  speaks  of  an  order  superior  to  Elders  or 
Presbyter-Bishops.  For,  besides  the  fact  of  the  interchangeable 
use  of  the  titles  "Elder"  and  "  Bishop"  to  them  as  demonstrative 
of  their  identity ;  the  twelve  apostles  are  no  where  in  the  New 
Testament  called  his/iops,  and  hence,  could  not  be  included  in  the 
orders  there  enumerated.  It  follows,  that  the  apostolic  organiza- 
tion of  the  Church  at  Philippi  was  constituted  simply  of  the  two 
orders  of  bishops  and  deacons.  And,  no  other  orders  being  includ- 
ed in  \h.Q  final  instructions  given  by  Paul  to  Timothy  and  Titus, 
these  two  orders,  namely  Bishops  and  Deacons,  and  these  ONLY, 
were  designed  to  constitute  the  ordinary  and  permanent  ministry 
of  the  Christian  Church  to  the  end  of  time. 

The  office  of  deacon, — an  account  of  which  is  given  in  the  6th 
chapter  of  the  Acts,  at  the  time  of  the  penning  of  this  epistle,  had 
been  in  existence  about  thirty  years.  Their  functions  may  be  in- 
ferred from  the  circumstances  which  originated  the  office.  The 
phrase  in  that  passage,  "  to  serve  tables,"  is  obviously  employed 
to  describe  the  trust  and  distribution  of  the  funds  of  the  Church. 
There  was  then  but.  one  source  whence  these  funds  were  derived — 
the  voluntary  contributions  of  the  people.  They  were,  however, 
sufficiently  ample,  all  the  property  of  the  Church  being  put  into 
one  common  stock.  There  were  inconveniences,  however,  which 
arose  from  this  abundant  liberality  and  implicit  confidence.     Those 

(1)  Philip.  1  :  16.     (2)  Philip.  1  :  6. 

♦  See  pp.  152-153. 


168 

who  received  the  distribution,  awarded  to  the  apostles  less  of  grati- 
tude and  trust  than  those  who  supplied  it.  Tlieir  hands,  though 
"  they  coveted  no  man's  silver  or  gold,"  were  cumbered.  Their 
minds  were  embarrassed  with  conflicting  claims  and  expecta- 
tions. Their  ministry  was  liable  to  reproach  and  hindrance. 
They  felt  the  necessity — they  saw  the  reasonableness,  of  de- 
volving the  whole  of  these  affairs  upon  the  hands  of  others, 
who  are  known  and  approved  for  their  wisdom,  piety,  and 
integrity.  In  transferring  the  funds  of  the  Church  to  the  deacons, 
they  transferred  to  them,  at  once,  the  ad^ninistration  of  all  tempo- 
ral affairs.  And,  by  so  doing,  '  they  established  a  principle  most 
wise  and  healthful,  and  which,  in  its  exhibition,  was  to  last  as 
long  as  the  imperishable  pages  which  record  the  measures  they,  on 
this  occasion,  directed  :'  the  object  being,  '  to  relieve  the  minds  and 
hands  of  those  who  have  the  spiritual  oversight  of  the  flock,  that 
they  might  thereby  "give  themselves  continually  to  prayer  and 
to  the  ministry  of  the  word." ' 

In  conclusion  on  this  subject  of  the  deaconate,  we  remark,  that, 
while  those  who  "  used  the  office  of  a  deacon  well,"  might  thereby 
be  admitted  to  the  exercise  of  other  and  higher  functions,  as  in  the 
instances  of  Stephen  and  of  Philip ;  yet,  their  designation  to  their 
office  no  more  included  such  an  office  prospectively,  than  in  the 
case  of  any  other  individual  possessed  of  the  requisite  qualifica- 
tions. 

It  results,  that  the  ministry,  apostolic,  designed  for  the  ordi- 
nary and  jjerpetual  service  of  the  Church  to  the  period  when 
"the  fullness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in,"'  as  furnished  in  accord- 
ance with  the  divinely -inspired  model  exhibited  in  the  instructions — 
not,  be  it  particularly  noted,  of  Peter,  but — of  Paul,  was,  the 
DUAL  orders  of  PRESBYTEK-BISHOPS,  and  DEACONS. 


SECTION   VI. 

Recapitulation  of  the  argument,  etc. — Conclusion. 

We  have  now,  so  far  as  we  know,  conducted  the  reader  over 
the  entire  scriptural  ground  relating  to  the  re-organization  of  the 
Church  under  the  ministry  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  We  have 
seen  how,  by  the  perfect  obedience  rendered  by  our  blessed  Lord 
and  Savior  Jesus  Christ  to  the  law,  moral,  ceremonial,  and  media- 
torial. He  changed  the  moral  relation  of  man  to  his  God,  by  re- 
moving him  from  under  the  Ilagar  or  Sinai  covenant  of  works, 
which  gendereth  to  bondage,  and  placing  him  under  the  older 
Abrahamic  covenant  of  grace :  and  hence,  that  Justification  ey 

(1)  Rom.  11  :25. 


169 

FAITH  IN  Christ,  who  "  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness 
to  every  one  that  believeth,'"  was  thenceforward  to  constitute  the 
only  ground  of  the  sinner's  acceptance  with  God.     And, 

Corresponding  with  this  fundamental  change, — constituting,  as 
it  did,  the  grand  turning --point  of  the  Church's  transit  from  Judaism 
to  Christianity, — is  the  nature  and  design  of  those  ordinances, 
and  of  that  ministry  which  was  instituted  by  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles. They  were  intended,  not  as  an  end^  but  as  a  means  to  an  end  ; 
not  as,  in  themselves^  possessed  of  any  saving  virtue^  or  efficacy  either  in- 
herent or  derived.  To  suppose  the  possession  of  such  saving  efficacy 
by  them,  involves  the  ascendency  of  the  religion  of  sense — of 
symholico-ecclesiological-ism — as  comprehensive  of  a  Judaico- Chris- 
tianized or  sacerdotal  priesthood,  and  of  ceremonials  and  a  stereo- 
typed ritual,  over  the  simple,  unostentatious,  spiritual  religion  of 
faith.  A  carnal  and  unyielding  Judaism  thundered  in  the  ears  of 
its  votaries,  "  except  a  man  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of 
Moses,  and  keej)  the  law,  he  cannot  be  saved. "^  Christianity, 
Judaized,  teaches,  except  a  man  be  baptized,  etc.,  he  cannot  be 
saved.  Both  systems  strike  at  the  very  root — the  heart — of  true 
Christianity,  which  has  for  its  foundation  the  great  fundamental 
doctrine,  justification  through  faith  in  the  perfect  obe- 
dience  AND   THE   PIACULAR   OR   EXPIATORY   SACRIFICE   OF  JeSUS 

Christ  for  sin  !  "  For,  in  Christ  Jesus,  neither  circumcision 
availeth  anything,  nor  uncircumcision ;  but  a  new  creature."^ 
"  For  he  is  not  a  Jew,  which  is  one  outwardly ;  neither  is  that 
circumcision  which  is  outward  in  the  flesh" — the  same  thing  being 
true  of  the  external  rite  of  baptism — "  but  he  is  a  Jew,  which  is 
one  inwardly;  and  circumcision  (or  baptism)  is  that  of  the  heart, 
in  the  SPIRIT,  and  not  in  4he  letter ;  whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but 
ofGod."- 

In  conclusion  on  this  subject,  I  would  add — what  I  earnestly  pray 
may  find  a  deep  and  abiding  place  in  the  mind  and  heart  of  every 
true  believer  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ — that  the  only  invulnerable 
stand-point  in  this  age  of  religious  declension  and  of  doctrinal  defec- 
tion from  "the  faith  which  was  once  delivered  to  the  saints,"  is,  an 
enlightened,  firm,  and  uncompromising  resistance  of,  and  opposition 
to,  the  already  wide-spread  and  rapidly-increasing  tendency  to 
SUBORDINATE  the  Head,  CHRIST,  as  "  the  great  Shepherd  and 
Bishop  of  our  souls,"  and  the  Spirit's  agency  in  our  enlightenment, 
regeneration,  and  sanctification ;  to  the  supkemacy  of  a  system 

CLAIMING  TO  DISPENSE  God's  GEACE  THROUGH  THE  CONDUIT  OF  EXTER- 
NAL SACRAMENTS  DISPENSED  AT  THE  HANDS  OF  A  JUDAICO-CHRIS- 

TIANIZED  PRIESTHOOD ! 

From  this  system, — the  danger  of  our  exposure  to  which  is  in- 
creasedj'it^^  in  proportion  as  it  is  presented  to  us  under  the  guise  of  an 
EVANGELICAL  GARB,  may  God  of  his  infinite  mercy  preserve  those  of 

(1)  Rom.  10  :  4.     (2)  Acts  15  •  1,  and  v.  24.     (3)  Gal.  6  :  1 J  ;  see  also  v.  0.     (4)  Rom.  i  :  26,  29. 


170 

his  people  who  have  not,  and  speedily  deliver  those  of  them  who  have, 
been  seduced  by  its  insidious  blandishments  from  "  the  old  paths 
AND  THE  good  way"  of  primitive  truth  and  order,  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.     Amen. 


N.B. — We  refer  the  reader  to  the  Table  of  Contents,  and  to  the  Alpha- 
betical Index  of  the  subjects  discussed  in  these  pages,  as  a  suitable  sub- 
stitute for  a  more  detailed  recapitulation  of  the  General  Argument. 


171 


PART    III. 

MINISTERIAL  PARITY,  VERSUS  PRELACY. 
CHAPTER.  L 

THE   PREDICTED    TRIAL  AND    APOSTASY  OF  THE   CHURCH,    UNDER 
■    THE   CHRISTIAN   DISPENSATION. 

SECTION   I. 

Introduction.  The  characteristics  of  the  New  Testament  Ministry,  as  exhibited  in 
Part  II.  of  this  Treatise,  shown  to  have  been  eniinently  simple  and  fraternal. — This 
Ministry  to  be  the  center-point  of  a  further  trial  of  the  Church's  integrity  to  Christ 
the  Head. — Her  defection  the  subject  of  prophecy. — The  basis  of  that  defection,  the 
tendency  of  all  orders  of  creaturehood,  angelic  and  human,  to  self-deification. — Its 
mode  of  development  in  the  Church,  a  love  of  "  the  pre-eminence." — Its  progress, 
gradual. — Its  fruit,  the  Papacy. 

The  Church,  as  reconstituted  under  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
whether  it  relates  to  her  ordinances  or  her  ministry,  presents  to 
view  a  most  strilcing  contrast  to  the  same  Church  under  the  last 
preceding  dispensation.  The  splendors  of  the  temple  worship  are 
exchanged  for  the  private  chamber,  the  sea-shore,  deserts,  moun- 
tains, dens,  and  caves  of  the  earth.'  The  Levitical  ritual  service 
and  almost  numberless  ceremonials  give  place  to  the  offering  up 
of  "all  manner  of  prayer  and  supplication,'"  and  of  "praise,"^ 
upon  the  altar  of  faith,  as  "  spiritual  sacrifices,  acceptable  to  God 
through  Jesus  Christ."  *  And,  the  gorgeous  array  of  sacerdotal 
vestments  are  displaced  by  the  seamless  robe^  of  the  antitypal 
"  High  Priest  of  our  profession,"  a  fisherman's  coat,"  or  a  Pauline 
cloak/ 

Then  also,  the  ministry  of  the  Church, — Though  like  the 
Aaronic  priesthood,  its  origin  (whether  appertaining  to  the  extra- 
ordinary and  temporary,  or  the  ordinary  and  permanent,  parts 
thereof,)  was  divine ;  yet,  in  its  nature,  orders,  functions,  and  ends, 

(1)  John  20  :  19.    (2)  Eph.  6  :  18.    (3)  Heb.  2 :  12.    (4)  1  Pet.  2:5     (5)  John  19  :  23.    (6)  John  21  : 7. 
(7)  2  Tim.  4  :  13. 


172 

how  changed  !  These  marks  of  dissimilarity,  however,  and  which 
evidence  the  total  absence  of  all  analogy  between  them,  will  fully 
appear  as  we  advance.  What  more  particularly  concerns  us  now 
is,  to  advert  to  that  portion  of  the  ministry  connected  with  the  New 
Testament  age,  which,  as  has  been  shown  in  Part  II.  of  this  Treatise, 
was  designed  for  her  ordinary  and  standing  service,  extension,  and 
edification  to  the  close  of  time. 

This  ministry,  then,  we  remark,  being  cast  in  the  apostolic  mould 
of  the  inspired  Paul,  (of  which  his  instructions,  etc.,  to  Timothy 
and  Titus  are  the  embodiment,)  how  sublimely  simple !  How 
eminently  fraternal !  We  here  behold  the  Preshjter-hishop^  in 
accordance  with  his  pastoral  relation  to  the  Church,  appointed — 
not  to  "lord  it  over  God's  heritage," '  as  "though  he  had  dominion 
over  their  faith ;" '  "  but,  as  being  ensamples  to  the  flock,"  to  "  feed 
the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  them,  taking  the  oversight  thereof, 
not  by  constraint,  but  willingly,  not  for  lilthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready 
mind."'  And,  in  his  ecclesiastical  relation  to  t\ie ruling  eldei\  ap- 
pointed, not  to  assume  over  him  the  prerogatives  of  a  spiritual 
despot,  but  to  act  with  him  as  a  coadjiitor  in  the  government  and 
discipline  of  the  flock,  and  finding  in  that  coadjutor  a  willing  ^j»a/'- 
ticipant  in  its  weighty  and  otherwise  perilous  responsibilities. 
And  both  these,  by  the  wisely-adapted  functions  of  the  deaconate, 
happily  relieved  from  the  cares  and  anxieties  of  its  temporal  con- 
cerns. 

Now,  we  can  conceive  of  nothing  connected  with  the  hene  esse — 
the  well-being  of  the  Church  in  every  subsequent  period  of  her 
militant  existence,  and  under  every  supposable  variety  of  external 
circumstances,  which  such  a  ministrj^  was  not  fully  adequate  to 
promote.  With  the  model-church  apostolic,  doctrinal,  govern- 
mental, and  disciplinary,  before  them,  their  "work"  was,  not  to 
lay  a  neiv  foundation  ;  not  to  labor  as  though  sent  to  complete  an 
unfinished  mission  assigned  to  others;  but,  to  '•'■  huild  upon''''  that 
"  foundation"  already  furnished  them  at  the  hands  of  "  the  apos- 
tles and  prophets,"  and  of  which  "  Jesus  Christ  was  the  chief- 
corner-stone."  No.  Jesus  Christ  bequeathed  not  to  the  Church  a 
single  vestige  of  what  originally  constituted  the  essential  elements 
of  the  office  apostolical.  Their  functions,  as  we  have  shown,  from 
their  nature  and  the  design  of  their  conferment,  were  absolutely  in- 
communicable. And,  taking  human  nature  at  what  it  ever  has 
been  and  still  is, — that  feature  of  it,  we  mean,  by  Avhich  it  has  been 
so  strikingly  characterized  under  every  state  and  condition,  inno- 
cent or  fallen,  patriarchal,  Levitical,  or  Christian,  namely,  its  ten- 
dency to  SELF-EXALTATION  :  the  intelligent  and  pious  mind  cannot 
but  admire  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the  construction  of  a  ministry  for 
the  permanent  service  of  the  Church,  which,  from  the  simplicity  of 
its  structure  and  its  fraternal  character  and  relations,  carries  with 

(1)  1  Pet  5  :  3.     (2)  2  Cor.  1  :  24.     (3)  1  Pet.  5  : 1-4. 


173 

it  the  evidence  of  its  adaptedness  to  curb  all  unholy  aspirations 
after  "  the  pre-eminence."  ' 

How  adinii'ably  adapted  such  a  ministry,  therefore,  to  preserve 
and  promote  that  xmion  of  the  mystical  body  of  Clirist  in  its  visible 
form,  for  which  Christ  prayed  and  the  apostles  labored !  So  far 
from  furnishing  any  ground  of  contention  as  to  who  "  should  be 
the  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of  God,"^  the  one  order  of  pres- 
byter-bishops, though  exercising  their  functions,  some,  by  teach- 
ing or  preaching  and  ruling,  and  some  by  ruling  only,  the  plat- 
form of  equality  of  the  ecclesiastical  corps  involved  any  the  least 
departure  from  the  original  regimen,  into  a  positive  usurpation  of 
prerogatives  totally  foreign  thereto.  "We  are  here  reminded,  and 
cannot  but  re-quote,*  the  strong  and  emphatic  language  of  Bp. 
Jer.  Taylor,  on  this  subject.  "  Whatsoever  was  the  regiment  of 
the  Church  in  the  apostle's  times,  that  must  be  perpetuall, — and  if 
the  Church  be  not  now  governed  as  then^  we  can  show  no  divine 
authority  for  our  government,  which  we  must  contend  to  doe,  and 
doe  it  too^  or  be  called  USURPERS."  Indeed,  the  wisdom  of 
God,  in  a  final  commitment  of  designation  of  this  ministry  to  the 
Church  under  the  guidance  of  His  special  providence,f  left  no 
pretext  for  a  primacy  of  one  over  the  other  or  of  suprem,a^y  of 
one  over  the  Church,  not  only ;  but  as  of  the  functions,  so  the  very 
name  aTr6<7TO/lof,  apostle,  was  withholden  from  them.  Like  the 
keys  of  Peter,  the  name  and  functions  apostolic  were  carried  to 
heaven  with  them ;  and,  when  shall  have  arrived  "  the  times  of 
restitution  of  all  things  which  God  hath  spoken  by  the  mouth  of 
all  his  holy  prophets  since  the  world  began  ;"'  then,  the  identifica- 
tion of  the  "  SIGNS"  of  their  apostolicity  with  the  trophies  of  their 
ministry  while  on  earth,  will  constitute  their  passport  to  the 
"  twelve  thrones"  on  which  they  "  shall  sit,"  as  judges  of  "  the 
twelve  tribes  of  Israel."* 

Nevertheless,  to  the  intent  "  that  no  flesh  should  glory  in  his 
presence,"  God  has  ordained  that  creatureho^od,  under  every  dis- 
pensation, should  be  subjected  to  a  test  of  their  integrity.  Indeed, 
this  feature  of  the  moral  government  of  God  reaches  to  all  orders 
of  created  intelligences.  It  involves,  in  all,  the  existence  of  a 
principle,  which,  for  the  sake  of  distinction,  we  shall  denominate 
an  innate  lust  for  "the  pre-eminence."  In  other  words,  it  is  a 
propensity  in  the  creature  to  aspire  after  self-deification — "  to 
exalt  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshiped."^ 
It  is  "  tlie  mystery  of  iniquity^''^  in  antagonism  with  "  the  mys- 
tery of  godliness. ''^^  And,  without  stopping  now  to  argue  the  con- 
sistency of  this  propensity  as  existing  in  all  orders  of  creature- 
hood,  angelic  and  human,  with  the  divine  benevolence,  we  re- 
mark, that,  wheresoever  and  whensoever  it  has  been  developed,  it 

(1)  3  John  r.  9.     (2)  Mark  9  :  34.     (3)  Acts  3:  21.     (4)  Matt.  19  :  23.     (.5)  2  Thess.  2  :  4.     16)  2  Thess. 
2  :  7.     (7)  1  Tim.  3  :  16. 

*  See  p.  97.    t  See  pp.  156-158. 


174 

has  been  actuated  by  one  undivided  purpose,  namely,  that  of  de 
fcating  God's  design  from  eternity  to  unfold,  promote,  and  secure 
his  own  declarative  glory,  through  the  medium  of  self-manife sta- 
tion in  the  PERSON  of  his  eternal,  only-begotten,  and  well-be- 
loved son,  Jesus  Christ — "  Gon  manifested  in  the  flesh."  In  the 
angelic  order,  this  lusting  for  "  the  pre-eminence"  manifested  itself 
on  the  occasion  of  their  revolt  against  the  revelation  of  God's  pur- 
pose to  unfold  his  divine  glory  through  a  nature  other  than  their 
own.  They,  in  other  words,  refused  to  stand  in  him — Jesus 
Christ — by  and  for  whom'  they  were  created  as  subordinates. 
Hence  the  record  respecting  them :  "  tliey  abode  not  in  the 
TRUTH."  "^  So,  of  man,  first,  in  innocence.  Created  in  the 
inxage,  and  after  the  likeness  of  God^ — that  is,  as  he  is  revealed 
through  Christ,  who  is  the  declared  "express  image  of  his  per- 
son"^— and  invested  with  earthly  dominion  ;*  yielding  to  Satanic 
influence,  the  same  propensity  exhibited  itself  in  his  decision  not 
to  hold  his  prerogatives  under  another.  His  resolve  was,  ^^we  will 
he  as  Gods,  to  knovj  good  and  evil ;"°  thus  aiming  to  supplant 
Him  who  was  "  set  up  from  everlasting,  or  ever  the  earth  was,"' 
from  his  rightful  relation  to  the  eternal  God  as  his  co-equal  and 
co-eternal  son.  The  same  of  man,  second,  in  his  fallen  state.  The 
degenerate  Cainite  antediluvian  race,  inheriting  the  spirit  of  their 
infidel  ancestor,  proudly  rejected  the  doctrine  of  piacular  or  expia- 
tory sacrifice  for  sin,  through  the  promised  seed  of  the  woman.* 
And,  the  nation  of  Israel,  called  out  and  separated  from  an  idola- 
trous Avorld  as  God's  peculiar  people,  with  every  blessing  vouch- 
safed them  which  heaven  could  bestow  or  they  enjoy,  and  secured 
to  them  by  a  "covenant  ordered  in  all  things  and  sure;"'  yet, 
they  gave  the  precedence  to  that  "bondage'""  which  followed  their 
choice  of  the  Hagar  or  Sinai  covenant  of  worJcs^  over  that  of 
grace,  as  the  ground  of  their  justification  before  God,  not  only; 
but,  prompted  by  the  emotions  of  a  fretful  impatience,  they  first 
place  an  earth-born  usurper  on  that  throne  occupied  by  God  him- 
self as  their  king,"  and  then  follow  up  that  act  by  their  relapse 
into  an  idolatry  deeper  and  darker,  and  more  revolting,  than  that 
of  their  Gentile  neighbors,'^  until  at  length  they  fill  up  the  mea- 
sure of  their  iniquity,  by  imbuing  their  hands  in  the  blood  of 
their  Messiah.'' 

But,  this  is  not  all.  The  preceding  memorials  of  creaturehood 
instability  were  to  be  followed  by  yet  another.  The  Church  op 
Christ,  as  reconstructed  under  the  new  dispensation,  was  also  to 
be  subjected  to  a  fiery  ordeal,  as  a  test  of  her  integrity  to  her  great 
and  glorious  Head.  Yes.  That  model  of  the  Church  as  reconsti- 
tuted by  Divine  appointment,  in  her  doctrines,  ordinances,  minis- 
try, government,  and  discipline  ;   and  which,  from  their  transcend- 

(1)  Col.  1  :  16.  (2)  John  8  :  44.  (3)  Gen.  1  :  Q6,  27.  (4)  Heb.  1  :  3.  (5)  Gen.  I  .  28.  (6)  Gen. 
3:5.  (7)  Prov.  8  :  23.  (8)  Gen.  3  :  H.  (0)  2  Sam.  23  :  5.  (10)  Gal.  4  :  24  ;  Heb.  2  :  15.  (11)  1  Sam. 
12  :  12.     (12)  1  Kings  16  :  25  ;  Jer.  7  :  26.     (13)  Acts  2  :  23. 


175 

ent  simplicity  and  fraternity  of  character,  were  so  eminently  calcu- 
lated to  preserve  and  promote  the  "  unity  of  the  faith  in  the  bonds 
of  peace,'"  by  fixing  her  eye  on  Christ  as  "  Head  over  all  things 
to  the  Church"  "till  he  come,"  has  nevertheless  been  made  to  sub- 
serve the  purposes  of  the  most  flagitious  perversions  of  truth,  and 
to  gratify  the  wildest  ambition  known  in  the  annals  of  time. 
And — awful  tjiought ! — with  the  same  design  with  those  acts  of 
revolt  and  apostasy  from  Christ  commenced  in  heaven,  and  con- 
tinued on  earth,  which  preceded  it — that  of  an  attempt  to  rob 
God  of  Ms  glory^  hy  the  dethronement  of  Christy  as  the  divinely- 
constituted  Heir  of  all  things.'''''^ 

Some,  doubtless,  there  are,  who  would  denounce  the  sentiment 
here  uttered  not  only  as  a  breach  of  Christian  courtesy  and  charity, 
but  as  absolutely  libelous,  even  if  confined,  in  its  intended  appli- 
cation, to  those  implicated  in  the  upholding  of  that  stupendous 
apostasy,  called  Popery;  yea,  and  that  too,  with  the  admonitory 
prediction  of  Paul  before  their  eyes,  "  Let  no  man  deceive  you  by 
any  means :  for  that  day  (the  day  of  Christ's  second  appearing) 
shall  not  come,  except  there  come  a  falling  away  firsts  and  that 
man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  son  of  perdition ;  who  opposeth  and 
exalt£th  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God ^  or  that  is  worshiped  ', 
80  that  he^  as  God^  sitteth  i?i  the  temple  of  God,  showing  himself 
that  he  is  God^^ 

But,  to  this  diluted,  though,  it  may  be,  well-meant  liberality, 
we  oppose  the  motto,  Veritas  est  maxij^ia  cakitas — "  Truth  is  the 
greatest  charity^  No  one  admitting  the  canonicity  of  the  New 
Testament  Scriptures,  will  venture  to  impugn  the  inspiration  of 
the  above  Pauline  prophecy.  We  appeal  then,  whether  it  be  in 
the  power  of  language  more  vividly  to  portraj'  the  nature,  charac- 
ter, and  aim,  of  what  was  to  constitute  the  great  antichristian 
apostasy :  that  it  was  to  consist  of  an  attempt,  as  we  have  said,  to 
rob  God  of  his  glory  by  the  dethronement  of  Christ  from  his 
rightful  position  in  the  universe,  as  the  divinely  constituted  "  Heir 
of  all  things."  The  predicted  "falling  away,"  as  above,  was  to 
eventuate  in  the  enthronement,  "  in  the  temple  of  God,"  of  "  the 
man  of  sin  ;"  in  which  temple^  he  should  "  exalt  himself  above  all 
that  is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshiped;  so  that  he  as  God," 
would  "show  himself  that  he  is  God"  ! 

Now,  what,  we  ask,  is  this,  if  it  be  not  a  self-deification  of 
creaturehood  under  the  Christian  Economy  and  m  the  Christian 
Church  ? 

But  in  addition  to  the  above,  we  add,  that  the  same  apostle  had 
before  spoken  on  this  wise  :  "For  I  know,  that  after  my  departing, 
shall  grievous  wolves  enter  in  among  you^  not  sparing  the  flock. 
Also  of  your  own  selves  shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse  things, 
to  draw  away  disciples  after  them.''^  And  on  another  occasion, 
thus :     "  Now  the  Spirit  speaketh  expressly,  that  in  the  latter  times 

(1)  Eph.  4  :  3.    (2)  Heb.  1  :  3.     (3)  i  Thess.  2  :  3,  4.     (4)  Acts  20  :  29,  30. 


176 

some  shall  depart  from  the  faith,  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits, 
and  doctrines  of  devils;  speaking  lies  in  hypocrisy;  having  their 
conscience  seared  with  a  hot  iron  ;  forbidding  to  marry,  and  com- 
manding to  abstain  from  meats,  which  God  hath  created  to  be  re- 
ceived with  thanksgiving  of  them  which  believe  and  know  the 
truth.'" 

Then,  in  the  next  place.  Eegarding  the  mode  of  i^anifestation 
of  the  above  self-deiiied  antichristian  apostacy,  the  apostle  thus 
speaks  :  "  Ilis  coming,"  says  he,  "  is  after  the  working  of  Satan," 
— (the  first,  and  hence,  the  leading^  aspirant,  to  the  Godhead  of 
Christ,  and  he  in  whom  is  to  be  headed  up  the  personal  antichrist 
of  the  last  days)—"  with  all  power,  and  signs,  and  lying  wonders, 
and  with  all  deceivableness  of  unrighteousness."' 

Finally,  his  liarhingers  were  the  "  wolves,"  "  men,"  who  should 
"depart  from  the  faith,"  etc.  spoken  of  in  the  preceding  prediction. 
For,  whether  they  should  appear  in  the  capacity  of  heresiarchs, 
who  should  "  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord 
who  bought  them,"''  or  assume  a  more  evangelic  garb,  and  under 
the  covert  of  "  good  words  and  fair  speeches"  "  speak  perverse 
things  ;"'  the  apostle,  having  affirmed  of  "  Satan,"  that,  to  accom- 
plish his  designs  against  Christ,  he  "  transformed  himself  into  an 
angel  of  liglit^''  he  argues:  "It  is  therefore  no  great  thing  if  Mb 
ministers  he  also  transformed  as  the  ministers  ^^  righteousness^''* 
And,  that  these,  one  and  all,  might  be  known  throughout  all 
time,  the  apostle,  in  addition  to  their  acts^  affixes  to  them  an  xm- 
mistakable  title.  They  were  to  "  transform  themselves  into  the 
APOSTLES  of  Christ."*  The  apostles,  as  we  have  seen,  were  en- 
dowed with  miraculous  powers,  as  the  "  signs"  of  their  apostleship. 
But  what  were  these  to  those  who  assumed  the  functions  apostolic, 
without  their  title  ?  They  knew  well,  and  appreciated,  the  value 
of  a  name,  as  denotive  of  official  rank,  and  as  a  ready  passport  to 
popular  favor.  Under  the  name,  they  relied  to  escape  detection, 
as  "  false  apostles,  deceitful  workers,"' — the  iiarbestgers,  as  we 
have  said,  of  the  great  antichristian  apostasy.  And,  the  subtlety 
and  success  of  their  imposture,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  of 
their  prevalence,  in  Paul's  day,  in  the  Church  which  was  scattered 
through  "  the  regions  of  Achaia."'  Nor  did  the  sig7is  of  his 
apostleship,  which  had  "been  thoroughly  made  manifest"  in  all 
the  Corinthian  churches  throughout  Achaia,  as  proofs  of  the 
falsity  of  their  claims,"  succeed  in  their  extermination.  The  apos- 
tle John's  commendation  of  the  Ephesian  Church,  for  having 
"  tried  those  who  said  they  were  apostles,  and  were  not,  but  were 
found  liars,'""  furnishes  evidence  of  their  existence  in  the  Church 
at  the  close  of  the  first  century. 

Now,  it  is  to  the  "  deceitful"  workings  of  this  "  false"  apostoli- 
city,  that  we  are  to  trace  the  origin  of  that  "  mystery  of  iniquity" 

(1)  I  Tim.  4  :  1-3.     (-2)  2  TlicsB.  2  :  9,  10.     (3)  2  Pet.  2  : 1.      (4)  Acts  20  :  30.      (.5)  2  Cor.  II  :  14,  15 
(6)  2  Cor.  11  :  13.     (7)  2Cor.  11  :  13.     (8)  2  Cor.  11  :  10.     (9)  2  Cor.  H  :  13.     (10)  Rev.  2  :  2. 


177 

which,  commencing  in  apostolic  times  and  on  apostolic  ground,  has 
at  length  well  nigh  attained  the  fullest  expansion  of  the  great  anti- 
christian  apostasy.  It  is  an  emanation  of  that  lust  for  "the  pre- 
eminence," which,  as  we  have  shown,  is  common  to  all  orders  of 
creaturehood.  Its  process  of  development  was  gradual.  In  the 
full  blaze  of  light  afforded  to  the  New  Testament  Church  by  the 
admonitions  of  Christ  to  his  apostles,  warning  them  against  indul- 
gence in  a  spirit  of  unholy  emulation  to  "lord"  it  over  God's 
"  heritage"  or  over  one  another ;  and  of  the  apostolic  injunctions 
upon  all  to  preserve  "the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace;" 
and  especially  of  their  exposures  of  the  false  pretensions  of  those 
who  in  their  day  laid  claim  to  apostolic  prerogatives  ;  it  is  not  to 
be  supposed  that  the  transition  from  primitive  simplicity  in  doc- 
trine, ordinances,  worship,  government,  and  the  ministry  of  the 
Church  to  a  system  of  will-worship,  superstition,  and  spiritual 
tyranny,  could  be  the  work  of  a  day. 

This  lusting  after  "  the  pre-eminence,"  so  far  as  definitely  de- 
veloped during  the  apostolic  age,  is  illustrated  in  the  conduct  of 
Simon  Magus  in  coveting  apostolic  prerogatives ;'  and  in  that  of 
Diotrephes,^  who  arrogated  ecclesiastical  superiority  over  "  the 
brethren"  of  the  presbyterate.*  These  two  facts  taken  together, 
serve  to  show  the  strength  of  the  propensity  of  fallen  creaturehood 
of  which  we  have  spoken,  to  aspire  after  primacy  and  supremacy 
"in  the  Church  of  Christ.  It  betrayed  Simon  the  sorcerer  into  the 
presumptuous  attempt  to  purchase  the  ^^ power^''  apostolic,  with  his 
ill-gotten  gains.'  And,  impelled  by  the  same  propensity,  what 
this  apostolic  aspirant  failed  to  obtain  by  a  bribe,  Diotrephes  re- 
solved to  USURP  ! 

And  thus,  we  now  observe,  has  it  come  to  pass,  that  through 
the  craft  and  subtlety  of  the  ecclesiastical  aspirants  of  after  ages, 
the  divinely-appointed  ordinary  and  perpetual  ministry  of  the 
Church, — a  ministry  so  signally  marked  by  its  simplicity  and  fra- 
ternity of  character — a  ministry  so  admirably  adapted  to  preserve 
unity  in  the  body  of  Christ, — has  been  so  far  invaded,  as  iinally, 
and  for  a  long  period,  to  have  been  almost  universally  supplanted, 
by  that  most  stupendous  and  terrific  system  of  ecclesiastico-politi- 
cal  and  spiritual  despotism,  THE  PAPACY  : — that  "  infernal  de- 
vice, that  deepest  conception  and  mightiest  achievement  of  Satan, 
into  which  he  hath  admitted  the  whole  canon  of  truth,  and  yet 
contrived  that  it  should  teach  only  error  ;  into  which  he  hath  ad- 
mitted the  whole  revelation  of  light,  and  yet  contrived  that  it 
should  breed  only  foul  and  pestilent  darkness.  Oh,  it  is  an  ample 
net  for  catching  men  ;  a  delusion  and  bondage  made  for  the  world, 
as  the  Gospel  was  a  redemption  made  for  the  Avorld.     No  partial 

(1)  Acts  8  :  18,  19.      (2)  3  John,  comp.  v.  9  with  vv.  5-8.     (3)  Acts  8  :  IS,  19. 
*  Else,  icho,  and  what  were  they  ?    The  apostles,  as  such,  are  never  thus  designated. 
Or  if  "the  brethren"  were  apostles,  then  Diotrephes  must  have  claimed  to  be  their  Pri- 
mate!    This  would  have  been  to  OM^Pe^er  Peter!     (See  Pt.  II.,  pp.  115-123.)      What 
then,  on  the  Romish  hypothesis,  becomes  of  Peter's  Primacy  ? 
12 


178 

error,  but  a  stupendous  deception,  and  universal  counterfeit  of 
truth,  which  hath  a  chamber  for  every  natural  faculty  of  the  soul, 
and  an  occupation  for  every  energy  of  the  natural  spirit,  pennitting 
every  extreme  of  abstemiousness  and  indulgence,  fast  and  revel- 
ry; melancholy  abstraction  and  burning  zeal;  subtle  acuteness 
and  popular  discourse ;  world-renunciation  and  worldly  ambition ; 
embracing  the  arts  and  sciences  and  the  stores  of  learning ;  adding 
antiquity  and  misrepresentation  of  all  monuments  of  better  times, 
and  covering  carefully  with  a  venerable  vail  that  only  monument 
of  better  times  which  was  able  to  expose  the  false  ministry  of  the 
infinite  superstition,  and  overthrow  to  the  ground  the  fabric  of  this 
mighty  temple,  which  Satan  had  constructed  for  his  own  glory, 
out  of  those  materials  which  were  builded  together  for  the  glory 
of  God  and  of  Christ!" 


179 


CHAPTER  n. 

EXAMINATION     OF     THE     PRELATICAL    DOGMA ROMISH,     TRACTARIAN, 

AND     HIGH    AND     LOW    CHURCH — OF    AN   ALLEGED  UNINTERRUPTED 
SUCCESSION  FROM  THE  APOSTLES,  BY  SEMINAL  DERIVATION. 

SECTION     I. 

Preliminarj'  remarks. — Prelacy. — Its  diversified  forms. — Substantially  the  same. — Con- 
sidered as  a  question  of  fact. — Four  stand- points  regarding  it,  as  landmarks  in  the 
discussions  which  follow. — Protean  character  of  the  Prelatico-Episcopal  theory. — If 
true,  must  be  shown — 1st:  To  be  derived  directly  from  Christ  himself — 2d  :  Must 
exercise  all  the  functions  Apostolical,  especially  that  of  conferring  the  'gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost" — 3d :  Must  prove  that  they  were  appointed  to  complete  what  the 
Apostles  left  in  an  unfinished  state. 

The  Papacy,  then,  as  described  in  the  closing  paragraph  of  the 
last  section,  in  its  ministrj^,  doctrines,  ordinances,  rites  and  ceremo- 
nies, etc.,  we  hold  to  constitute  that  grand  defection  from  the  min- 
istry, doctrines,  and  ordinances  of  Divine  appointment,  predicted 
by  Paul. 

That  grand  Papal  apostasy  we  believe  to  be  the  result  of  a  usur- 
pation of  the  original  Heaven-appointed  but  untransferable  func- 
tions of  "the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb." 

But,   what  we  allege,   as  above,  to   have   been   a   usurpation, 

modern  prelacy  or  episcopacy  affirms  a  warrant — -jure  divino — for 

the  continuance  of  the  apostolic  office  and  functions  to  the  end  of 

world.     Hence  the  dogma  of  an  unhroke^i  apostolical  succession 

from  tJie  JSfew  Testament  times  d/)wnto  this  day. 

We  must  here  note  as  of  importance  in  the  premises,  that,  with 
the  exception  of  the  differences  which  have  obtained  among  the 
various  prelatico-episcopal  sects  regarding  the  number  of  orders 
and  the  variations  of  mode  in  the  exercise  of  their  functions,  the 
above  dogma  of  an  unbroken  apostolical  succession  as  advocated 
by  Romanists,  Tractarians,  and  by  High  and  Low  Churchmen,  is 
substantially  the  same.     The  evidence  of  this  will  be  forthcoming. 

We  have  now  to  do  however  with  a  question  of  fact.  We  ask 
then,  Were  there,  or  were  there  not,  true  successors  to  "  the 
twelve,"  as  well  as  "  false"  pretenders.,  during  and  subsequently 
to,  the  New  Testament  age  ? 


180 

In  reply,  we  shall  assume  the  four  following  propositions  as 
stand-points  for  proof,  to  be  adduced  in  the  sequel,  as  derived  from 
"Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,"  etc.,  namely  : 

I.  That  there  is  not,  in  the  entire  records  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, the  shadow  of  evidence,  that  either  one  of  "the  eleven" 
apostles  or  Paul,  ever  transferred  his  functions  as  deri/ved  from, 
Christy  either  in  whole  or  in  part ^  to  another. 

II.  That  "  the  false  ministry  of  that  infinite  superstition"  called 
the  papacy,  sprung  up  from,  and  has  been  nurtured  and  sustained 
by,  those  who,  fi'om  apostolic  and  primitive  times  to  the  present 
day  (under  Avhatever  sectarian  designation  known),  have  claimed, 
or  do  now  claim,  apostolical  prerogatives.     And,  consequently, 

III.  That,  inasmuch  as,  inherent  in  the  very  texture  of  pre- 
latical  episcopacy  is  the  germ  of  the  papacy,  the  early  ^o^^apos- 
tolic  episcopacy  having  produced  that  "  infinite  superstition ;" 
modern  episcopacy.,  even  in  its  mildest  form.,  preserving  the  ele- 
Tnents  of^the  original  germ^  has  the  same  tendency  Romiswaed,  as 
that  of  the  magnetic  needle  to  the  body  which  attracts  it. 

These  several  propositions  sustained,  it  will  follow, 

rV.  That  the  numerous  recent  and  continued  defections,  cleri- 
cal and  lay,  from  the  communion  of  the  Anglican  and  American 
Episcopal  Churches  to  that  of  Rome,  follow  in  the  relation  of  cause 
and  effect.  Pkotestant  Episcopacy,  the  leaven:  Romanism,  the 
lump. 

Impressed  with  a  conviction  of  the  claim  to  my  belief,  of  the 
sentiments  involved  in  these  stand-points — the  result,  I  may  say, 
of  a  protracted,  laborious,  and,  I  trust,  prayerful  investigation  of 
the  subject  in  all  its  parts  and  bearings  (a,nd  of  which  this 
Treatise  is  the  fruit),  it  was  from  a  solemn  sense  of  duty,  that  I 
withdrew  m}-  connection  from  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 

This  act  was  induced  under  the  persuasion,  that,  for  myself,  at 
least,  there  was  no  safety  but  in  leaving  a  road  which,  though 
varying  in  width  from,  yet  at  all  points  shelved  off  towards,  a 
fearful  precipice — the  papacy. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  take  up  the  stand-points  assumed  in  the 
preceding  section  seriatim.  They  are  designed  simply  as  land 
marks  upon  which  to  fix  the  eye  in  our  progress  along  a  path  of 
unparalleled  intricacy.  Nothing  is  more  obvious  than  that  the  sys- 
tem of  Prelacy,  though  claimed  by  its  advocates  to  form  the  focus 
of  UNITY  to  the  Church,  and  that  it  is  so  clearly  taught  as  to  be 
"  evident  unto  all  men  reading  holy  Scripture  and  ancient  au- 
thors," yet  present  almost  as  many  theories  regarding  its  origin, 
^ature,   orders,  powers,   etc.,  as  there  are  writers  in  its  defense. 


181 

Polemically,  we  affirm  that  there  is  no  other  system  of  so  Protean 
a  character.  Under  its  quadrupled  forms,  Romish,  Tractarian,  and 
High  and  Low  Church,  we  know  of  no  two  writers  of  either  school 
who  will  unite  in  furnishing  a  reliable  definition  of  their  own 
scheme  respecting  it.  Rome  has  never  yet  decided  ivhere  or  in  what 
consists  the  seat  of  its  power.  And,  of  the  other  episcopal  sects, 
their  mutual  denunciations  of  each  other  and  of  their  respective 
systems  through  the  medium  both  of  the  pulpit  and  the  press,  in 
book,  and  pamphlet,  and  periodical  form ;  and  their  variations  in 
those  ceremonials  and  deviations  from  the  so-called  "  form  of 
sound  words,"  so  long  and  so  oft  the  loud  boast  of  a  uniformity 
which  bids  defiance  to  innovation,  sufficiently  attest  the  truthful- 
ness of  the  view  here  exhibited  of  it.  With  the  promise,  how- 
ever— in  the  proper  place — of  such  a  definition  of  Episcopacy  as 
its  current  nomenclature  will  be  shown  to  warrant,  we  proceed 
now,  as  preliminary,  to  a  discussion  of  the  main  subject,  to  a  state- 
ment of  several  considerations  as  illustrative  of  what  is  absolutely 
fundamental  to  a  consistent  theory  of  the  dogma  in  question.  We 
remark,  then, 

1.  That,  fundamental  to  such  a  theory  is  the  derivation^  directly 
from  Christ  himself  of  the  commission  to  exercise  apostolic  powers. 
That  this  is  true  of  the  original  "  twelve,"  none  will  deny.  So, 
on  this  subject,  we  claim  to  have  furnished  evidence  the  most  irre- 
fragable, in  our  vindication  of  Paul's  right  to  the  apostleship  as 
one  of  "  the  twelve,"  over  that  of  Matthias.*  In  the  appointment 
of  a  successor  to  Judas,  it  was  shown  that  that  of  Matthias  was 
defective.  For,  besides  the  fact  that  his  election  over  his  compe- 
titor, Justus,  was  decided  by  "  lot" — an  equivocal,  and,  as  was 
proved,  unauthorized  mode  of  procedure  in  a  matter  so  solemn, 
momentous,  and  responsible — it  was  founded  in  a  premature  act 
on  the  part  of  the  "  hundred  and  twenty"  disciples,  instigated  by 
a  well-meant  though  mistaken  view  of  duty  as  urged  by  Peter,  he 
leaving  received  from  Christ's  own  lips  a  prohibition  to  perform 
that  act  not  only,  but  any  and  every  other,  until  endowed  "  with 
that  power"  from  on  high,  which  awaited  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  at  Pentecost.  On  the  other  hand,  Paul's  language  is,  I  am 
"  an  apostle  (not  of  nian^  neither  hy  man^^ — either  by  "  lot"  or 
otherwise — "  but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Father,  who 
raised  him  from  the  dead").'  And  again:  "But  I  certify  you, 
brethren,  that  the  Gospel  which  was  preached  of  we"  (and  which 
is  equally  true  of  his  compeers  in  office),  "  is  not  after  men, 
neither  icas  I  taught  it^  hut  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.'" 
Now,  evidently,  if  there  be  any  meaning  in  language,  the  apostle, 
in  the  above  passages,  must  be  understood  by  implication  to  affirm, 
first,  that  none  either  were  or  could  be  apostles,  but  those  who  de- 

(1)  Gal.  1  :  1.     (i)   lb.,  V.  n.  12. 
*  See  Part  II.,  pp.  133-136. 


182 

rived  their  commission  and  authority  directly  from  Christ  himself. 
Second,  that  the  Gospel  which  they  preached  as  such,  was  derived 
from  the  direct  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.  And  hence,  third,  that 
any  whose  apostleship  is  human  merely,  that  is,  which  is  after 
man,  or  of  man,  or  hy  man,  whether  5(?Z/'-derived  or  obtained  from 
another,  is  a  USURPATION!  and,  hence,  "FALSE"!!  And 
then,  as  fundamental  to  the  validity  of  the  claims  of  such  to  the 
apostleship,  it  is  indispensable, 

2.  That  they  possess  and  exercise^  whole  and  entire^  whatever 
constituted  the  original  apostolical  functions^  pre-eminent  among 
which  was  their  power  to  confer  on  others  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

By  referring  to  Part  II.,  page  108,  the  reader  will  see  in  what 
consisted  the  qualifications  and  endowments  of  the  original 
"  twelve."  Now,  of  these  endowments,  their  power  to  confer  on 
others  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  constituted  the  principal  badge 
of  their  apostleship.  He  who  exercised  this  power,  therefore,  was 
necessarily  endowed  with  every  other  function  peculiar  to  their 
office.  The  Evangelist  Philip,  though  he  wrought  many  miracles, 
for  example,  casting  out  devils,  and  healing  the  leprous  and  the 
lame,'  etc.,  yet  could  not  confer  the  Holt  Ghost  on  those  who  be- 
lieved. Hence,  Simon  Magus,  possessing  the  sagacity  to  discover 
this  difference  in  the  distribution  of  miraculous  powers  in  the  pri- 
mitive Church,  and  knowing  that  could  he  but  possess  himself  of 
the  greater  power  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  he  could  exercise  also  all 
the  lesser  functions  of  the  Evangelist  Philip,  made  a  bold  push 
for  the  apostleship.  His  whole  procedure  demonstrates  that  what 
he  aimed  at  was,  the  possession  of  what  lay  heyond  the  functions  of 
the  inferior  orders,*  viz.,  THE  POWER  TO  CONFER  THE 
HOLY  GHOST.  The  same,  with  those  who  in  Paul's  and 
John's  times  usurped  those  apostolic  functions  which  Simon  failed 
to  obtain  by  a  golden  bribe.  "  Transforming  themselves  into  the 
ministers  of  righteousness,"  as  the  "  false  apostles  and  deceitful 
workers"  of  those  times,  they  well  knew  that  a  failure  to  furnish 
a  counterfeit  to  each,  and  all  the  "  powers  and  signs  and  wonders" 
Avrought  by  "  the  twelve,"  could  not  fail  to  expose  their  imposture 
and  subject  them  to  merited  infamy.  Their  success  in  their  en- 
deavors to  "  deceive  if  it  were  possible  the  very  elect,"  depended 
on  this  circumstance  alone.  To  "  5«y  that  they  were  apostles," 
while  they  professed  inability  to  do  the  work  of  apostles,  had  been 
with  them  a  contradiction  and  an  absurdity.  And,  that  they 
actually  wrought  miracles  in  attestation  of  their  alleged  claims  as 
the  representatives  or  successors  of  "  the  twelve,"  lays  our  credii- 
liiy  under  no  greater  contribution,  than  in  the  case  of  those  re- 
corded of  the  Egyptian  magicians  in  the  days  of  Moses. 

(1)  Acts  8  :6. 
*  See  Part  II.,  pp.  H7,  148. 


183  > 

We  hence  argue,  that,  if  these  "  false  apostles  and  deceitful 
workers"  of  the  New  Testament  age,  thus  "  transforming  them- 
selves into  the  apostles  of  Christ,"  arrogated  the  possession  and 
exercise  of  all  the  prerogatives  of  "  the  twelve ;"  then,  surely, 
those  who  since  their  times  claim  to  be  of  the  true  apostolical 
succession  in  a  line  of  unbroken  continuity,  must  possess  similar 
functions,  or,  whatever  else  they  may  be,  they  "  are  not  apostles, 
but  are  found  liars." 

To  the  preceding,  we  add, 

3.  That,  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that  the  apos- 
tolic office  and  functions  as  above  described  were  intended  to  be 
perpetual,  it  follows,  that  the  end  or  design  of  their  continuance 
must  have  been  the  same  with  that  for  which  they  were  originally 
given :  in  other  words,  that  the  same  necessity  which  then  existed 
for  their  exercise,  now  exists :  at  least,  that  they  are  continued  in 
the  Church  in  order  to  complete  what  the  first  apostles  left  in  an 
unfinished  state, — or,  that  the  model  Church-apostolic,  though 
constructed  in  all  its  parts  according  to  the  pattern  revealed  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  in  her  constitution,  ministry,  doctrines,  ordinances, 
etc.,  was  not  adequate  to  "  ih.Q  perfecting''''  of  the  mystical  body  of 
Christ,  "  the  Church,"  which  "  should  after" — that  is,  through  all 
succeeding  generations — "  believe  on  him  to  life  everlasting,"  till 
she  should  attain  "  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the 
stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ"  ; — the  very  basis,  this,  we  affirm, 
of  that  Scripture-detracting,  God-dishonoring,  soul-ruining  dogma 
of  Rome,  so  zealously  supported  by  her  modern  German  panthe- 
istico-neologic  and  prelatico-semi-papal  allies — the  doctrine  of 
Development  :  a  dogma — rather  the  dogma,  which  involves  a  de- 
nial of  those  two  grand  principles — the  pillars  upon  which  rests 
the  entire  structure  of  our  Protestant  Christianity — first,  the  abso- 
lute sufficiency  and  supremacy  of  "  holy  Scripture"  as  the  rule  of 
our  faith  and  as  the  standard  of  appeal ;  and  second,  ministerial 
equality. 


184 


SECTION  n. 

The  only  modes  of  escape  from  the  above  hypotheses — 1st:  Positive  evidence  that 
Christ  delegated  to  others  the  authority  to  propagate  said  succession — 2d :  Also  of 
the  persons  by  whom  and  on  whom,  and  the  time  when  and  the  place  where,  said 
apostolic  office  and  functions  were  conferred. — The  system  defined. — Exami- 
nation of  the  alleged  evidence  in  support  of — namely,  "  holy  Scripture  and  ancient 
authors."  I.  "Holy  Scripture" — prelatical  arguments  from — (1.)  "  Lo,  I  am 
with  you  al way,"  etc. — ;2.)  "As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,"  etc. —  (3.)  "No  man 
taketh  this  honor,"  etc. — Bishop  McCoskrey  on — Remarks  on. — Necessity  of 
exhibiting  the  system  as  it  is. — Proof  that,  cardinal  to  said  system  is  its  perpetual 
priestly  and  sacerdotal  character  with  vicarial  functions. 

Now,  from  the  first  two  conditions  mentioned  in  the  preceding 
section,  as  fundamental  to  a  consistent  theory  of  an  unbroken  apos- 
tolical succession,  namely,  first,  that  the  office  and  functions  of 
each  and  every  link  in  the  chain  be  derived  directly  from  Christ ; 
and  second,  that  they  possess  and  exercise  all  the  functions  of  "the 
twelve ;"  remain  the  only  following  modes  of  escape,  to  wit : — 

1.  To  adduce  the  evidence  of  an  explicitly  authenticated  dele- 
gation^ hy  Christ  himself  to  others^  of  authority  to  jp'ropagate  said 
office,  together  with  an  explicitly  authenticated  account  of  the  per- 
sons hy  whom,  and  of  the  circumstances  of  time  and  place,  and 
of  the  persons  on  whom,  said  office  and  functions  were  conferred, 
from  the  apostle's  times  down  to  this  day.     And, 

2.  To  adduce  Scriptural  authority  to  show,  that  the  original 
functions  apostolic  were  partly  extraordinary,  partly  ordinary ; 
and,  that  their  office  as  apostles,  consisted  of  the  latter  only,  and 
hence,  that  this  office^  as  constituted  of  their  ordinary  functions, 
was  THE  THING  to  be  transferred  to  their  alleged  successors. 

We  now  proceed  to  show,  that  the  above  two  hypotheses  form 
the  basis  of  the  tnodern  prelatico-episcopal  theory  of  an  unbroken- 
apostolical  succession. 

Eeduced  to  the  form  of  a  definition,  the  current  nomenclature 
of  the  standard  authorities  and  advocates  of  this  theory,  is  as  fol- 
lows. Alleging  that  the  apostolical  is  merged  into  the  prelatico- 
episcopal  office,  and  that  it  is  in  all  respects  identical  with  it ;  it 
adopts  a  course  of  reasoning  which  makes  the  Church  to  exist 
SEMINALLY  in  the  apostolic,  that  is,  the  now  Episcopal,  orders, 
and  of  which  the  following  is  the  substratum  of  the  system  : — 

^^MuUa  ecclesia  sine  episcopo^  "Without  a  Bishop,  there  is 
NO  Chukch." 

Our  first  business  now  is,  to  review  the  evidence  adduced  in  sup- 
port of  the  prelatico-episcopal  hypothesis  of  a  delegated  authority 
from  Christ  to  others,  to  propagate  the  apostolic  office.  This  evi- 
dence is  of  two  kinds.  Scripture  and  Tradition.  Let  us  attend  to 
the  evidence  as  alleged, 


185 

I. — From  "  Holy  Scripture."  Of  this  class,  are  the  three  fol- 
lowing passages.  "  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world."  "  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you." 
"  No  man  taketh  this  honor  unto  himself,  but  he  that  is  called  of 
God,  as  was  Aaron."  These  three  passages  collectively,  it  is 
affirmed,  set  forth,  the  first,  the  Divine  purpose  to  continue  the 
apostolical  office  and  functions  in  the  Church  to  the  end  of  the 
present  dispensation.  The  second,  the  fact  of  authority  delegated 
by  Christ  to  his  apostles  to  that  end.  The  third,  the  same  fact  re- 
asserted, together  with  a  declaration  of  the  nature  and  character  of 
their  functions : — "  Called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron  !" 

The  argument,  as  predicated  of  these  passages,  is,  that  as  the  prom- 
ise of  Christ's  continued  presence  with  his  apostles  in  the  first  pas- 
sage could  not  relate  to  them  perso7ially^ — they  being  short-lived 
like  other  men, — it  must  refer  to  their  office :  that  this  office, 
accordingly,  as  perpetuated  by  the  authority  with  which  the  apos- 
tles and  their  successors  are  invested  in  the  second,  furnishes  the 
only  evidence  of  the  existence,  in  the  Church,  from  the  apostles's 
times  of  "  the  ministry  of  reconciliation ;"  and,  that,  as  in  the 
third,  all  orders  and  ministrations  are  invalid,  null,  and  void,  ex- 
cept as  derived  from  those  who  are  alleged  to  have  been  "  called 
of  God,  AS  WAS  Aaron."  Take  the  following  quotations  in  illus- 
tration.    Of  the 

First,  "  Zo,  /  am  with  you  oXway^''  etc..  Bishop  McCoskrey 
says, — "  This  passage,  must  have  at  once  satisfied  the  minds  of  the 
apostles,  that  the  office  they  had  received  from  the  Savior,  was  not 
to  cease — that  it  was  to  continue  until  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation 
had  been  conveyed  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  They  could  not  live 
to  this  period,  and  therefore  all  doubt  as  to  their  right  of  transfer 
must  have  been  removed  from  their  minds."*     Of  the 

Second,  "  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,"  etc.,  he  says, — that 
Christ  "  ^v^an.^/e?Tec^  the  power  he  received  from  God  his  Father, 
the  words  of  the  text  most  fully  declare."f  Again.  "  This  point 
then  is  clearly  settled ;  that  the  apostles  held  the  only  ministry 
which  was  of  Christ.  Not  only  the  power  to  rule  and  govern  the 
Church,  but  of  course  it  must  follow,  to  continue  the  same  'power. 
If  not,  there  never  has  been  any  authorized  ministry  in  the  Church, 
and  all  who  profess  to  be  commissioned  as  ambassadors  of  Christ, 
are  gross  impostors.  There  can  be  no  escape  from  such  a  conclu- 
sion."j:     Of  the 

Third,  "  No  man  taketh  this  honor^''  etc.,  the  Bishop  argues,  that 
as  Christ  glorified  not  himself  to  be  made  a  high  priest,"  but  was 
anointed  for  his  office  as  a  public  teacher  by  the  descent  upon  him 
of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  so,  "  the  apostles  were  admitted  to  the  exer- 
cise of  this  power  in  the  same  manner."  And,  "in  this  transac- 
tion," says  he,  "  they  were  raised  up  to  the  very  same  office  which 

*  Sermon  :  Episcopal  Bishops  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  p.  14.  t  lb.  p.  7. 

%  lb.  p.  12.    The  Italics  are  ours. 


186 

Christ  himself  held."*  Then,  having  spoken  of  Christ  as  a  High 
J^riest,  and  that,  as  "there  were  three  grades  in  the  ministry  under 
the  Jewish  dispensation,"  namely,  the  High  Priests^  Priests^  and 
Levites  ;  and  in  analogy  with  which  during  his  ministry,  were  Ilirti- 
sdf^  as  '•  the  High  Priest ;  the  ajpostles — the  priests ;  and  the 
seventy — the  Levites ;"  so,  "  immediately  preceding  his  ascension, 
he  transferred  it,"  i.e.  the  HIGH  PEIESTHOOD,  "  to  the  apos- 
tles." *  *  *  '*  They  then  stood  as  his  representatives,  and 
arranged  the  ministry  after  the  model  which  he  himself  had  fol- 
lowed, namely,  in  accordance  with  the  ministry  of  the  Church  as 
IT  EXISTED  PKioK  TO  uis  COMING  ;"f  namely,  the  AAKONIC 
PRIESTHOOD. 

It  were  an  easy  matter  to  fill  pages  with  similar  quotations  from 
the  standards  and  other  writings,  explanatory  and  in  defense  of 
Protestant  prelacy.  The  above,  however,  will  suffice  for  our 
present  purpose.  We  proceed  now  respectfully  to  demur  to  the 
tone  of  assurance,  if  not  indeed  of  infallibility,  indicated  in  the 
above  passages.  We  cannot  concede  the  ex-cathedra  statements 
of  the  learned  Bishop  of  Michigan,  that  the  points  involved  are  so 
"  clearly  settled,"  as  "  that  there  can  be  no  escape  from"  the  "  con- 
clusion" to  which  he  has  arrived.     In  regard  to 

The  first  passage.  We  are  not  so  sure  that  Christ's  promise  to 
"  the  twelve"  to  be  "  with"  them  "  alway,"  etc.,  "  at  once  satisfied 
their  minds  that  the  ojflce  they  had  received"  from  him  "  was  not 
to  cease."  In  the  first  place,  as  the  phrase  itself,  "  I  am  with  you," 
is  susceptible  of  at  least  four  different  meanings — I  am  with  you 
personally,  providentially,  graciously,  or  with  miraculous  power; 
it  is  clear  that  Christ's  personal  presence  could  not  have  been  in- 
tended, for  he  was  just  about  to  leave  them  ;  nor  yet  his  providen- 
tial and  gracious  presence,  for  these  being  common  alike  to  all  be- 
lievers, there  was  no  occasion  of  a  special  assurance  of  the  continu- 
ance of  either  to  them.  It  follows,  that  our  Lord  could  only  have 
meant  to  be  with  them  in  a  miramilous  manner.  The  promise  in 
this  sense  was  fully  verified  to  them.  For,  as  well  aftei\  as  before, 
the  ascension,  it  is  recorded  of  them  that  "  they  went  forth  every 
where,  the  Lord  worMng  loith  them.,  and  confirming  the  word 
with  SIGNS  following."  Nor  is  it,  we  remark  further,  quite  so  cer- 
tain as  his  Kight  Reverence  would  intimate,  that  the  apostles  did 
not  understand  the  language  of  their  Divme  Master  according  to 
its  literal  and  grammatical  sense,  "Z(9, 1  am  with  you  alway ^^^  etc. 
And  if  so,  then  their  office  was  to  terminate  with  theynselves.  As 
"the  WITNESSES  of  Christ's  resurrection,"  their  commission  was, 
"  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,"  etc.  They  did  so.  "  They  went 
forth  everijwhere ;"  and,  in  conjunction  Avith  the  subordinate 
orders  which  God  had  "  set  in  the  Church"  to  co-operate  with 
them  "  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  minis- 
try,  and  for  the   edifying   of  the  body  of  Christ," — "  prophets, 

*  Sermon  :  Episcopal  Bishops,  etc.  f  lb  pp.  10,  12. 


187 

evangelists,  pastors  and  teacliers,'" — they  preaclied  that  gospel  "^o 
every  creature T  Hence  the  following  testimony  of  Paul,  "  Veri- 
ly, their  sound  went  into  all  the  earthy  and  their  words  unto  the 
ENDS  OF  THE  ^^'■ORLD."^  By  preaching  and  teaching,  by  word 
and  by  epistle,  their  divinely  commissioned  work  was  to  continue, 
accompanied  with  the  miraculous  presence  of  Christ  "working 
with  them,"  "  until"  (|tie%pt,  Greek,  donec^  Latin,  adverbs  denoting 
the  time  how  long)  believers  had  "  come  into  the  unity  of  the  faith, 
and  of  the  knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man  :"^ 
and,  as  elsewhere  shown,*  with  this  agrees  the  li7nit  of  tJie  j?romise 
of  Christ  to  the  twelve,  as  set  forth  in  the  words,  ecjg  rrjg  awreXetag 
rov  aloovog,  'TILL  the  conclusion  of  this  age  or  stately  assigned  to 
you  my  apostles,  for  the  ingathering  and  planting  of  the  Church. 

"We  submit  then,  that  prelatists  must  either  adopt  the  view  here 
advocated,  or  else  prove  (what  we  deny)  that  Christ  has  heen  with 
the  ministry  of  the  Church  after  a  miraculous  manner^  from  New 
Testament  times  down  to  the  present  day.  Of  this  subject,  how- 
ever, more  anon.     Of  the 

Second  passage,  we  remark,  that  it  is  clearly  a  petitio  principii 
— a  begging  of  the  question — to  affirm  that  it  admits  of  no  other 
construction,  than  "  that  Christ  transferred  the  power  he  received 
from  his  Father"  to  his  apostles.  Why,  we  ask,  may  it  not  be  un- 
derstood to  set  forth  the  equality  of  prerogative  of  Christ  with  the 
Father,  in  the  matter  of  dispensing  commissions  to  others.  That 
this  is  the  sense  of  the  passage,  we  thiuk  is  clear  from  our  Lord's 
having  preceded  the  commission  given  to  "  the  twelve,"  "  Go  ye 
therefore  into  all  the  world,"  etc.,  with  the  announcement,  "  All 
power  is  given  to  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth."'  We  affirm  that  it  is 
that  '■^  all  poioer''^  to  which  the  passage  under  consideration  looks, 
as  the  source  of  the  great  apostolic  commission.  The  passage 
treats  of  a  comjyarison  of  powers.  "  As"  Christ's  commission  as 
the  "  sent'"  of  God,  "  set  up  from  everlasting"  as  the  Great  Media- 
tor, emanated  from  the  Father,  who  holds  the  relation  of  rectoral 
Head  in  the  plan  of  human  redemption;  "  even  so,^'  the  commis- 
sion of  the  twelve  as  the  senf"  of  Christ,  emanates  from  that  au- 
thority with  which  He  is  invested,  in  virtue  of  His  "finished" 
work  on  the  cross  and  in  the  grave,  as  our  Eedeemer.  We  only  add 
now,  that,  on  the  other  hypothesis,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
show  in  another  place,  is  involved  more  than  a  mere  transfer  of 
Christ's  2?riestly  office. 

The  third  and  last  of  the  three  above  named  passages,  as  we 
have  said,  is  employed  by  the  advocates  of  prelacy  as  denoting 
the  scriptural  nature  and  character  of  the  official  functions  apos- 
tolic, which,  thc}^  allege,  "  the  twelve,"  as  the  delegated  "  repre- 
sentatives" of  Christ  on  earth,  were  authorized  to  transfer  to  others. 

(1)    Eph.  4  :  11,    12.      (2)  Rom.   10  :  18.      (3)    Eph.  4  :  13.      (4)    Matt.   28  :  18.      (5)  John  5  :  30, 
(6)  John  20  :  21. 

*  See  Part  II.,  pp.  138-140. 


188 

"  No  man  taketJi  tJiis  honor  unto  hiriiself^  hut  he  that  is  called  of 
Gody  AS  WAS  Aaron." 

The  importance  of  this  subject,  and  its  bearings  on  the  ques- 
tions at  issue,  will  justify  the  space  appropriated  to  it  in  these  in- 
quiries. We  have  at  length  arrived  at  that  point  in  our  progress, 
where  we  must  look  the  prelatico-episcopal  system  in  the  face, 
AS  IT  IS.  The  subject  of  its  alleged  uninterrupted  perpetuity 
as  seminally  derived  from  the  apostles,  as  a  question  of  fact,  will 
be  duly  considered  in  its  proper  place.  What  now  concerns  us  is, 
to  determine,  in  the  light  of  "holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors," 
together  with  what  is  claimed  in  its  behalf  by  its  modern  advo- 
cates, what  is  its  true  nature^  character  and  tendency^  as  a  whole. 
To  do  this  effectually,  it  must  be  stript  of  all  meretricious  appen- 
dages, and  be  drawn  from  the  cloud  of  dust  and  smoke  into  which 
it  is  enveloped,  whether  by  the  arts  of  an  insidious  sophistry,  or 
the  ignorance  of  a  blind  and  mercenary  zeal.  Our  own  deliberate 
persuasion  is,  that  the  mass  who  have  been  reared  from  the  cradle 
under  its  influence,  and  the  many  who  are  seduced  by  its  blan- 
dishments from  "the  old  paths  and  the  good  way"  of  simple 
primitive  truth  and  order,  do  not  understand  it.  How  can  it  be 
otherwise,  while  trusting  to  the  Babel -tongued  teachings  of  its  self- 
interested  advocates  ?  Under  its  Protestant  guise,  what  stores  of 
learning,  and  what  pov.^ers  of  eloquence  are  employed — but,  as  we 
shall  show,  without  success — in  shielding  it  as  a  system  from  the 
imputation  of  its  Romexoard  tendency !  As  a  system,  our  firm  con- 
viction is,  that,  but  for  its  advocacy  by,  and  the  support  which 
it  receives  from,  the  so-called  Evangelical  Low  Church  party  in  the 
Anglican  and  American  Churches,  such  a  thing  as  Pkotestant 
Episcopacy,  as  we  said,  would  soon  be  numbered  among  the  things 
that  were ! 

Cardinal  to  the  system  of  episcopacy,  then,  we  af&rm,  is  its 
alleged  perpetual  priestly  or  sacerdotal  character,  with  vicarial 
powers  :  to  which  subject  we  shall  direct  the  reader's  attention  in 
the  following  section. 


fi  189 


SECTION    m. 

Examination  of  the  alleged  evidence,  as  derived  from  the  typical  character  and  conse- 
quent analogy  of  the  Christian  ministry  to  the  Aaronic  priesthood. — Definition  of 
the  theory. — Quotations  from  its  four  classes  of  advocates: — I.  The  Romish  the- 
ory : — II.  The  Tractarian  theory : — III.  The  High  Church  theory ;  Bishop  McCos- 
krey  : — IV.  The  Lowr  Church  theory ;  Bishop  Grisw^old. — The  Book  of  Common 
Prayer. — Episcopacy  as  founded  in  expediency. — Fallacy  of. — Proof,  that  in  its  most 
y  diluted  form,  it  is  invested  with  vicarial  powers. — It  is  Judaism  with  a  Christian 

name — Is  identical  with  the  High  Church,  Tractarian,  and  Romish  theories  of. — 
Consequences  :  contentions,  strife,  divisions. — Dilemma  of  the  Low  Church  party. — 
Must  place  their  system  on  the  platform  of  expediency  alone,  or  admit  its  priestly 
character. — Mode  of  their  attempt  to  escape  from. — The  reader  admonished. — Trac- 
tarians,  etc.  the  most  consistent. 

Proceed  we  now  to  an  examination  of  the  arguments  in  support 
of  the  prelatical  theory,  as  alleged  to  be  founded, 

I.  In  the  typical  character  and  consequent  analogy  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry  with  the  Aaronic  priesthood.     And, 

II,  In  the  alleged  perpetuity  of  said  ministry  in  the  line  of  an 
unbroken  succession  from  the  apostles's  time. 

I.  Episcopacy,  as  a  system,  is  founded  on  the  hypothesis,  that, 
as  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  which  originated  in  express  Divine  ap- 
pointment, was  ti/jrical,  it  must  refer  to,  and  can  only  be  realized 
in,  a  corresponding  ministry  under  the  Christian  disj^ensatioti,  as  ap- 
pointed by  Christ.  Such  a  ministry  only,  "is  called  of  God,  as  was 
Aaron." 

We  shall  proceed  at  once  to  lay  before  the  reader  quotations 
illustrative  of  this  point  from  the  writings  of  the  various  sects  who 
bear  the  name.     And, 

1.  The  lioMiSH  theory.  The  Eoman  Pontifical  is  the  exponent 
of  the  Eomish  dogma  in  this  matter.  In  giving  directions  for  the 
manner  of  "  conferring  holy  orders"  in  the  ordination  of  deacons, 
the  bishop  is  instructed  to  speak  to  them  as  about  to  be  introduced 
into  the  I^evitical  order,  saying,  "  In  the  old  law,  the  one  tribe  of 
Levi  was  chosen  from  out.  of  the  twelve,  which  should  serve  the 
tabernacle  of  God,  etc. — whose  name  and  office,  beloved  sons,  you 
hold,  hecaicse  you  are  chosen  into  the  Levitical  office,  for  the  min- 
istry of  the  tabernacle  of  witness — that  is,  the  Church  of  God." 
And,  in  the  ordination  of  priests,  the  bishop  prays,  that,  like  the 
seventy  elders,  and  like  Eleazar  and  Ithamar,  sons  of  Aaron,  they 
may  be  endued  with  the  Spirit,  etc.* 

2.  The  Tractarian  theory.  Take  the  following  in  illustration : 
"The  priests  of  the  sons  of  Levi  shall  come  near ;  for  them  hath 
the  Lord  thy  God  chosen  to  minister  unto  him,"  etc. ;  (Deut.  21: 

*  Roman  Pont.     Tom.  VIII.  ^  4,  12. 


190 

5.)  "  Now,  my  lord,  this  is  what  we  mean  by  the  authoritative  ad- 
ministration of  the  Christian  clergy,  whether  they  be  by  way  of 
benediction,  or  of  any  other  kind."*  "It  was  on  account  of  Christ's 
words  to  his  apostles,  'as  my  Father  hath  sent  me,'  etc.  that 
Ignatius,  Cyprian,  and  others,  represent  the  whole  college  of  bish- 
ops throughout  the  whole  world  as  one  person,  sitting  in  one  chair, 
attending  one  altar,  and  that,  therefore,  is  the  one  Eucharist  which 
is  celebrated  by  this  one  pkiesthood,"  etc.f  "  Whoever  is  asso- 
ciated in  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  ought"  etc. — "  Bishops  and 
priests,"  saith  St.  Ambrose,  "  are  honorable  on  account  of  the  sac- 
rifice they  offer.":]:  "  If  we  would  guard  against  popular  mistakes 
in  the  subject  at  large,  it  will  be  necessary  to  examine  first,  what 
the  Church  Avas  under  the  Old  Testament^  for  there  we  find  its  m^igi- 
not  establishment,  its  form,  its  authority,  its  ministry,  its  unity  and 
uniformity,  its  maintenance,  its  independence,  which  things  being  so 
particularly  laid  down,  no  new  establishment  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Epistles  or  the  Gospels  of  the  New  Testament,  but  the  ancient  con- 
stitution is  referred  to,  to  show  us,  in  certain  cases,  what  ought  to 
be  from  what  has  been."§  "As  the  Church  of  God  hath  always 
been  the  same  in  its  nature,  it  hath  likewise  preserved  the  same 
form  in  its  external  economy,  the  wisdom  of  God  having  so  or- 
dained, that  the   Christian  Church  under  the  Gospel  should  not 

depart  from  the  model  of  the  Church  under  the  law There 

were  then  three  orders  of  priests  in  the  Jewish  Church  :  there  was 
the  high  priest,  and  the  sons  of  Aaron,  and  the  Levites.  In  the 
Church  of  Christ,  there  were  the  order  of  the  apostles,  the  seventy 
disciples,  and  last  of  all  the  deacons,  etc.  The  same  form  is  still 
preserved  in  every  regular  Church  of  the  world,  which  derives  its 
succession  and  authority  from  the  Church  of  the  apostles,"  etc. I 
"  Can  you,  Sir,  when  you  consider  that  bishops  are  appointed  to 
succeed  the  apostles,  and,  like  them,  to  stand  in  Christ's  place, 
and  exercise  their  kingly,  priestly^  and  prophetic  office  over  their 
flocks,"  etc.t 

(3.)  The  High  Church  theory.  Bishop  Hobart.  "  From  the 
first,  there  have  been  three  grades  in  the  ministry.  Under  the  Jew- 
ish dispensation,  there  were  the  high  priests,  priests,  and  Levites, 
When  Christ  appeared  to  establish  the  Gospel  dispensation,  there 
were  subordinate  to  him  as  the  great  High  Priest  of  our  profession, 
the  apostles,  and  the  seventy.  After  his  ascension,  we  find  the 
ministry  constituted  under  tne  three  grades  of  apostles,  elders,  or 
presbyters,  sometimes  called  bishops  and  deacons.  In  the  churches 
which  the  apostles  founded,  we  still  discover  three  grades.  In 
Ephesus  and  Crete  there  were  Timothy  and  Titus  (apostles),  elders 

*  Law's  second  leller  to  Bishop  of  Bangor.      (Tracts  for  the  Times,  Vol.  III.  p.  156.) 
+  Johnson,  on  Unbloody  Sacrifice.     Part  II.,  Chapter  3.     (Tracts,  etc.,  p.  157.) 
X  Bishop  Wilson,  Private  Thoughts.      (Tracts,  etc.,  p.  161.) 
■    §  Bishop  Home,  Diocesan  Charge.      (Tracts,  etc.,  p.  166.) 

II  Jones,  of  Nayland,  Lecture  on  Hebrews  3.     (Tracts,  etc.,  p.  169.) 

i  Bishop  Hicks,  Treatise  on  the  Episcopal  Ordination.     (Tracts,  etc.,  p.  155.) 


19i 

or  presbyters,  sometimes  'called  bishops,  and  deacons."*  Bishop 
McCosKKEY.  "  So  long  as  the  Savior  exercised  the  office  of  high 
priest,  and  before  he  transferred  it  to  the  apostles  immediately 
preceding  his  ascension,  there  were  three  grades  in  the  ministry,  as 
Avas  the  case  in  the  Church  under  the  Jewish  dispensation.  Christ, 
the  high  priest ;  the  apostles,  the  priests ;  and  the  seventy,  the 
Levites.  The  apostles  did  not  reach  the  highest  grade,  so  long  as 
the  Savior  exercised  any  ministerial  authority  on  earth,  hut  were 
raised  up  to  it  as  he  was  about  returning  to  heaven.  They  then 
stood  as  his  representatives,  and  arranged  the  ministry  after  the 
MODEL  which  he  himself  had  followed,  viz.,  in  accordance  with  the 
ministry  of  the  Church  05  it  existed  prior  to  his  coining y\ 

(4.)  The  Low  Church  theory.  Bishop  Grriswold.  "The  law 
given  by  Moses  was  a  shadow  of  good  things  to  come ;  it  in  all 
things  typified  the  Oospel  state^  and  is  called  '  a  schoolmaster  to 
bring  us  to  Christ.'  And,  accordingly,  it  had  the  three  orders  of 
the  ministry — the  high  priest,  the  priests,  and  the  Levites — with 
different  and  distinct  powers  and  duties."  He  then  adds,  "  these 
facts  prepare  us  to  expect  that  the  like  number  of  grades  in  the  minis- 
terial office  would  he  continued  in  the  Chzirch,^^  etc.  "  Thus,  it  appears 
that,  during  Christ's  ministry,  there  were  three  different  orders  or 
grades  of  preachers.  First,  Himself,  acting  as  the  high  priest,  or 
bishop,  in  his  own  person,  and  governing  the  Church  ;  secondly, 
the  twelve ;  and  thirdly,  the  other  seventy."  "  After  he  ascended 
into  heaven."  This  appears  from  the  "  two"  following  facts : 
"  First,  that  Christ,  immediately  before  he  left  the  earth,  advanced 
his  apostles  to  that  rank  in  the  Church  which  he  was  leaving.  '  As 
(he  says)  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you.' "  And 
a  little  further  on,  the  bishop  adds,  that  Christ  "  appointed  them 
to  the  office  that  he  was  leaving."  "  The  other  fact  is,  that  not  long 
after,  ministers  of  a  new  order  were  ordained  by  the  apostles, 
called  deacons.":]:     Finally, 

(5.)  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  will  be  found  to  inculcate  the 
same  theory.  For  example  :  In  the  "form and  manner  of  order- 
ing priests,"  in  presenting  the  candidates  to  the  bishop,  occurs  the 
following:  "Reverend  Father  in  God,  I  present  unto  you  these 
persons  present,  to  be  admitted  to  the  order  of  priesthood^  Then 
the  bishop  says,  "  Good  people,  these  are  they  whom  we  purpose, 
God  willing,  to  receive  this  day  unto  the  holy  office  oi  priesthood  " 
etc.  In  the  collect,  thus :  "  Almighty  God,  Giver  of  all  good 
things,  .  .  .  mercifully  behold  these  thy  servants,  now  called 
to  the  office  of  priesthood,^^  etc.  In  laying  on  of  hands,  thus : 
"  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  of  a  priest  in  the  Church 
of  God,"  etc.     And  so,  in  reference  to  the  altar.     In  the  office 

*  Hobart's  Apol.  for  the  Apost.  Ordn.,  pp.  144,  145. 

f  Episcopal  Bishops  ;  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles.     A  sermon,  etc.     1S42.     p.  12. 
t  Bishop  Griswold  on  the  Apostolic  Succession,     p.  5.     Tracts  on  the  Church.     No. 
I.     Boston.     1843. 


!lr92 

of  institution,  the  rubric  directs,  "then "shall  the  instituted  minis- 
ter kneel  at  the  altai-  to  present  his  supplication  for  himself,"  in 
this  form:  "O  Lord,  my  God!  I  am  not  worthy  that  thou 
shouldest  come  under  mj  roof;  yet  thou  hast  honored  thy  servant 
witli  appointing  him  to  stand  in  thy  house,  and  to  serve  at  thy 
holy  altar,^^  etc.  And,  in  the  communion  service,  the  act  of  conse- 
cration of  the  elements  is  denominated  "  the  oblation,"  or  sacri- 
fice, celebrated  and  made  before  the  "  Divine  Majesty,"  etc.  We 
also  remark  by  the  way,  that  in  the  rubrical  directions  given  for 
the  administration  of  said  communion,  the  term  "  priest"  occurs 
seventeen  times  ! 

In  the  view,  and  on  the  authority,  then,  of  these  statements,  we 
affirm  that,  cakdinal  to  THE  SYSTEM  OF  EPISCOPACY,  is 

ITS    PRIESTLY    OR   SACERDOTAL    CHARACTER.      As  We    havC    Said,  it 

starts  on  the  hypothesis,  that  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  being 
typical,  could  refer  to,  and  be  realized  in,  none  other  than  a  corre- 
sponding ministry  under  the  Christian  dispensation  ;  and  hence 
affirms  that  such  a  ministry  was  actually  established,  first,  by 
Christ  himself,  and  second,  by  the  apostles,  in  virtue  of  power 
derived  from  Him. 

True,  this  sequence  is  denied  by  some  of  the  advocates  of  the 
system,  who  plead  for  and  justify  its  adoption  on  the  ground  of 
expediency  alone;  the  ground,  the  highest  ground,  and  (as  we 
shall  show  in  the  sequel*)  the  07ily  ground  on  which  it  was  placed 
during  the  early  post-apostolic  age,  not  only,  but  also  at  the  com- 
mencement of  the  Anglican  Eeformation.f 

The  above  statements,  however,  clearly  indicate  that,  inherent 
in  the  system  even  in  its  most  diluted  form,  is  the  assumption  of 
official  prerogatives,  the  possession  and  exercise  of  which  it  were 
preposterous  to  defend  on  the  ground  of  expediency  alone.  The 
reader  need  not  be  told,  that  the  veriest  shadow  of  a  shade  of  the 
prelatical  scheme  claims  in  its  behalf,  that  it  is  the  only  legitimate  chan- 
nel by  and  through  Avhich  has  been  and  can  be  perpetuated  in  the 
Church,  a  valid  ministry  and  ordinances ;  a  hypothesis  obviously 
■incompatible  with  the  princi|)le  of  expediency,  which,  if  offered  in 
jusiilication  of  one,  is  equally  eligible  in  behalf  of  a  dozen  con- 
flicting systems ;  a  fact,  we  observe,  that,  at  an  early  period  of 
the  existence  of  episcopacy  during  the  post-apostolic  age,  and  again 
at  the  period  of  the  Anglican  Eeformation  dating  from  the  time 
of  Laud,  induced  its  removal  from  off  so  precarious  a,  basis,  and  the 
placing  it  on  a  footing  of  authority,  jure  divino,  analogous  to  that 
of  the  Aaronic  oi-ders.     Again, 

This  point  attained,  and  a  similar  process  follows  the  discovered 
insufficiency  of  the  argument  for  Episcopacy,  as  founded  in  the 
alleged  analogy  of  its  three  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Dea- 
cons, with  those  of  the  Levitical  Priesthood.     To  clothe  the  triple 

*  See  Chap.  IX.,  Sec.  I.  of  Part  III.  t  See  Introduction,  pp.  15-18,  21. 


.^ 


193 


Christian  orders  witH  ajDpropriate  fiiiictions,  tliey  must  not  only  be 
considered  as  analogous  to,  but  as  the  antitype  of,  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood ;  and  hence,  that  it  becomes  the  legitimate  inheritor  of  the 
dignity,  privileges,  and  duties,  which  inhered  in  the  type. 

We  repeat,  therefore,  that  the  prelatico-episcopal  theory  in- 
volves the  dogma  of  an  unbroken  apostolical  succession,  with 
VICARIAL  POWERS.  It  is  a  Judaico-christianized  priesthood.  Yea, 
more.  As  the  offspring  of  a  time-serving  expediency,  it  was  the 
Papacy  in  embryo  !  In  evidence,  it  is  sufficient  to  take  a  view  of 
its  practical  workings  in  the  time  of  Laud,  and  of  those  of  our  own 
day.  These  demonstrate  that,  under  whatever  pretense  it  may  be 
put  forward,  it  is  to  the  Christian  Church  what  the  ancient  king- 
ship of  human  device  was  to  the  theocracy  of  the  Hebrew  com- 
monwealth. As  that  aimed  at  the  dethronement  of  the  Christ  of 
God  as  the  only  legitimate  KiXG  of  Israel ;  so  this  seeks  to  usmy 
those  prerogatives  which,  as  we  shall  presently  show,  belong  alone 
to  Christ  as  ''the  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  our  souls"  and  "the 
Head  over  all  things  to  the  Church." 

We  have  spoken  of  the  practical  workings  of  this  theory,  and 
of  its  removal  from  off  the  quicksand  basis  of  expediency,  for  that 
alleged  to  be  founded  in  divine  right.  Its  nature,  character,  and 
tendency,  from  this  jDoint^  are  developed  in  the  quotations  given 
under  the  four  classes  of  its  advocates,  Romish,  Tractarian,  and 
High  and  Low  Church,  as  above.  Now,  invert  this  order,  and  you 
are  furnished  with  an  illustration  of  the  process  by  which  this  un- 
scriptural  and  antichristian  system,  conceived  and  brought  forth 
under  the  specious  guise  qf  expediency,  grows  to  the  full  maturity 
of  that  "infinite  superstition,  the  Papacy." 

This  system,  as  we  have  seen,  claims  to  be  a  priesthood^  the  anti- 
type of  the  Aaronic,  not  only,  but  of  that  of  Melchisedek.  Take, 
now,  the  argument  advanced  in  support  of  the  theory  of  Pro- 
testant episcopacy.     It  assumes, 

First,  that  Christ  was  an  High  Priest.  Admitted.  And,  on  the 
basis  of  this  assumption,  it  alleges. 

Second,  that  Christ,  prior  to  his  ascension,  transferj-ed  this  priest- 
hood from  himself  to  his  apostles,  "  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me, 
even  so  send  I  you." 

Let  us  now  turn  to  Bishop  Griswold,  the  leader  of  the  party  and 
the  advocate  and  interpreter  of  the  theory  of  Low  Churohism  for 
about  half  a  centur3^  He  tells  us  that  "  the  law  of  Moses,"  "  in 
all  tilings  typified  the  gospel  state  f  and  that,  inasmuch  as 
"  it  had  the  three  orders  of  the  ministry — the  high  priest,  the 
priests,  and  the  Levites — with  different  and  distinct  powei-s  and 
duties ;"  so  Christ,  "  acting  as  the  high-priest,  .  .  .  immedi- 
ately before  he  left  the  earth,  advanced  his  apostles  to  that  rank," 
or  "he  actually  did  give  them"  that  "ministry"  which  "the  Fa- 

13 


194 

tlier  had  given  him ;"  that  is,  "  he  appoints  them  to  the  office  which 
he  was  leaving^  * 

It  must  here  be  borne  in  mind,  that  we  are  now  treating  of  the 
priestly  or  sacerdotal  character  of  Protestant  Episcopacy  in  the 
abstract.  Of  its  other  powers,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  speak 
hereafter.  We  now  remark,  that  you  look  in  vain  through  the 
higher  developments  of  the  system, — Bomish,  Tractarian,  and 
High  Church — for  a  fuller  and  more  explicit  statement  of  that 
feature  of  it  of  which  we  now  speak.  Indeed,  of  those  who  rank 
among  the  High  Church  party,  we  know  of  no  writer  who  gives  a 
fairer  picture  of  the  s_ystem,  as  it  is.  And,  to  it  the  Tractarian 
party  subscribe  their  hand  and  seal,  the  only  difference  between 
themselves  and  their  coadjutors,  consisting  in  the  variations  iVi  the 
mode  of  its  exhibition.  To  this  circumstance  alone,  are  to  be  traced 
the  heart-rending  "contentions,  and  strife,  and  divisions,"'  which 
are  now  rending  the  body  Episcopal,  in  both  hemispheres.  The  so- 
called  Evangelicals  of  the  Low  Church  school,  unquestionably  oc- 
cupy in  this  controversy  no-  enviable  position.  Consistency f  de- 
mands of  them  as  the  condition  of  a  longer  tenure  of  their  beloved 
theory,  either  that  they  retain  and  advocate  it  on  the  simple  ground 
of  expediency  alone,  or  that  they  admit  its  priestly  or  vicarial  cha- 
racter. Their  choice  is,  by  an  adroit  use  of  equivoxial  terms  and 
phrases,  to  evade  both  horns  of  this  dilemma.  In  this,  they  see 
their  account.  While  Episcopacy,  arrayed  in  their  ambiguous 
drapery,  to  a  superficial  observer,  appears^  on  the  one  hand  to 
claim  his  regard  as  founded  in  divine  right :  on  the  other,  the  marks 
of  its  identity  with  its  higher  forms  of  development,  are,  to  say  the 
least,  greatly  obscured May  I  here  be  permit- 
ted a  moment  to  pause,  while  I  caution  the  reader?  "Beware," 
then,  "of  men,'"*  and  of  that  class  in  particular,  of  whom  I  am 
now  speaking — those  who  "  say  they  are  apostles^  and  are  notJ^  E.e- 
member,  it  is  "by  good  words  and  fair  speeches'':|: — equivocal 
terms  and  phrases — ambiguous  drapery,  that  such  seek  to  "  de- 
ceive''^ the  unwary. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Tractarian  affirms,  tliat,  take  away  from, 
episcopacy  its  sacerdotal  character,  and  the  whole  system  at  once 

(1)  1  Cor.  1  :  11  ;  3  :  3.  (-2)  Matt.  10  :  17. 

*  Bishop  Griswold  on  the  Apostolical  Succession,  pp.  •'),  6.  Tracts  on  the  Church, 
No.  I.  Boston,  184.3.  The  writer  is  here  reminded  of  a  conversation  which  passed  some 
years  ago  between  himself  and  Dr.,  now  Bishop,  Eastburn,  the  successor  of  Bishop  Gris- 
wold in  the  diocese  of  Massachusetts,  on  the  subject  of  Episcopacy  as  analogous  to,  and 
the  antitype  of,  the  Jewish  Priesthood.  On  that  occasion,  said  the  Right  Rev  prelate, 
under  whose  imprimatur  the  above  Tract,  as  the  first  of  a  series  in  defense  of  the  eccle- 
siastical polity,  doctrines,  etc.  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  is  issued,  stiongly  re 
pudiated  the  resting  its  claims  on  any  other  ground  than  that  of  k.xprdiency  alone  :  and 
hence,  denied  all  resemblance  between  the  two,  whether  of  analogy  or  of  type.  The 
circumstance  is  here  alluded  to,  simply  to  illustrate  and  confirm  what  we  have  said  of 
the  impossibility  of  upholding  said  theory  on  the  expediency  principle  alone,  and,  we 
might  perhaps  add,  especially  when  subjected  to  the  external  pressure  of  a  miter  I 

t  See  Introduction,  pp.  33,  34 

X  See  article  •'  Beware  of  false  doctrine,"  p.  vi.,  of  this  Treatise. 


195 

falls  to  tlie  ground.  He  contends  that,  modify  and  mould  it  as 
you  may,  you  cannot  annihilate  the  virus  which  warms  its  heart, 
and  courses  through  its  veins.  And,  with  a  zeal  worthy  of  a 
better  cause,  he  exclaims — consistency  my  course,  if  my  final  des- 
tiny be  EOME. 

And,  if  it  be  true,  as  the  above-named  patriarch  of  Low  Church- 
ism  affirms,  viz. :  that  Christ,  as  the  antitypal  fligh  Priest  of  the 
old  law,  did  transfer  His  official  rank  to  his  apostles,  then  the  Trac- 
tarian  is  right.     There  is  no  alternative  :  Geneva  or  Rome  ! 


SECTION   IV. 

Arguments  aemonstrative  of  the  fallacy  of  the  alleged  typical  analogy  of  the  Christian 
ministry  to  the  Aaronic  priesthood — 1st:  The  two  compared — 2d:  Christ  himself 
the  only  antitype  of  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  sacrifices — 3d  :  No  resemblance 
between  the  orders  of  the  two — The  test  applied — (1.)  to  the  Anglican  episcopacy 
— (2.)  to  the  Romish. — 4th  :  Further  proof,  derived  from  the  absolute  perfection  of 
the  antitypal  sacrifice  of  Christ — 5th  :  No  evidence  of  the  transfer  by  Christ  to 
others,  of  His  priestly  office  and  functions. — Conclusion. — The  Romish  and  Trac- 
tarian  theories  the  most  consistent. — Unfortunate  dilemma  of  Low  Churchmen. 

Proceed  we  now,  however,  to  a  series  of  scriptural  arguments, 
demonstrative  of  the  fallacy  of  an  alleged  episcopo-priestly  Christian 
ministry,  as  antitypal  of  the  Aaronic  orders.     \Ve  affirm,  then, 

1. — That  the  Aarom'cal  priesthood  luas  in  no  sense  typical  of  the 
Christian  ministry.  The  ministry  of  Christ  himself,  from  his  bap- 
tism to  his  crucifixion,  was  not  that  of  a  sacrificing  priest,  but  of 
the  '■'■great  Prophet''  and  "  Teacher""'  sent  from  God.  And,  surely, 
there  was  nothing  in  this  analogous  to,  or  antitypal  of,  the  Aaronic 
priesthood.  Then,  too,  what  Christ  communicated  to  his  apostles 
both  of  doctrinal  and  practical  Christianity  during  that  period,  he 
commanded  them  to  "teach"  to  "  all  nations."'  True,  the  things 
taught  by  Christ  included  the  great  doctrine  of  piacular  or  expi- 
atory sacrifice  for  sin,  and  the  sacrifices,  etc.  under  the  law  pointed 
to  himself  as  "  the  Lamb"  to  be  "  slain"  for  the  sins  of  the  world. 
But  to  show  that  his  ministry  was  strictly  prophetical^  he  abstained, 
during  its  exercise,  from  all  invasion  of  the  priesthood  of  the  tem- 
ple, not  only,  but  deferred,  till  a  little  prior  to  his  crucifixion,  the 
disclosure  of  the  fact  to  his  disciples,  that  He  was  to  die,  as  a  sa- 
crifice for  the  sins  of  the  people.  ^  And  that,  for  the  simple 
reason, 

2. — That^  in  Himself  o-s  the  antitype,  centered  all  the  typps  and. 
shadows  of  the  Priesthood  under  the  law.  Their  office,  the  aj^ostle 
tells  us,  was  to  "  serve  unto  the  example  and  shadow  of  heavenly 
things.''^  *     Their  design,  then,  may  be  gathered  from  the  following. 

(1)  John  3  :2.     (2)   Matt.  2S  :  IP,  20.     (3)   Matt.  JG  :  1  .3.      (4)  Heb   3  : 3. 


196 

"  Every  "high  priest,"  continues  he,  "  is  ordained  to  offer  gifts  and 
sacrifices."  '  And  again,  "  Every  high  priest  taken  from  among 
men,  is  ordained  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  that  he  may 
offer  both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins.  lie  ought,  as  for  the  peo- 
ple, so  also  for  himself,  to  offer  for  sins." '  To  offer  sacrifice 
for  sins — to  make  intercession  for  the  people,  therefore,  and  not  to 
distinguish  between  mere  grades  of  office,  was  the  province  of  the 
Type. 

Now  for  the  Aniitype.  Of  the  incarnate  Jesus,  says  the  apos- 
tle, "  in  all  things  it  behooved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  breth- 
ren, that  lie  might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  in  things 
pertaining  to  God,  to  maize  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  ^)eopZe." ' 
Now,  under  the  law,  this  work  was  parceled  out  among  the 
different  orders  of  the  priesthood.  While  the  lower  orders  of  priests 
offered  the  sacrifices  in  the  outer  court,  it  was  the  province  of  the 
high  priest  alone  to  enter  into  the  holy  of  holies  with  the  sprink- 
ling of  blood,  to  intercede  for  the  people  before  the  mercy -seat. 
But  Christ,  as  the  antitype,  merged  in  his  own  person  the  work 
of  both.  "  Once,  in  the  end  of  the  world,"  says  the  apostle,  "  hath 
he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of  himself"  ■*  This 
he  did  when  he  suffered  death  upon  the  cross  "  without  the  gate."' 
The  other  act  was  fulfilled  in  Him,  "  when  he  entered,  not  into 
the  holy  place  made  with  hands,  but  into  heaven  itself,  there  to 
appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us."'  It  hence  follows,  that  in- 
asmuch as  the  sacrifices  of  the  priests  in  the  outer  court  were  un- 
availing, if  separated  from  the  intercession  of  the  high  priest  in 
the  inner  sanctuary  ;  so,  of  the  antitype.  Christ's  sacrifice  on  the 
cross,  separated  from  his  entering  into  lueaven  itself  with  blood,  as 
our  priestly  intercessor,  had  left  the  sinner  without  hope. 

The  type,  therefore,  we  insist,  first,  adumbrated  Christ's  sacrifice 
of  himself  on  the  cross  without  the  gate  ;  and  second,  his  priestly 
office  in  our  behalf  in  the  heavens.  What  language  can  be  more 
emphatic  on  this  subject  than  the  following :  "  If  he  (Christ) 
were  on  earth^''  says  the  apostle,  "he  would  not  be  a  priest,  see- 
ing that  there  are  priests  that  offer  gifts  according  to  the  law."  ' 
And  he  makes  it  the  ground  of  our  assurance,  that  "  we  have  a 
great  high  piiest  that  is  passed  into  the  heavens,  Jesus,  the  Son 
of  God:"*  and  that,  "because  he  continueth"  there  "ever,  hath 
an  unchangeable  priesthood ;"  not,  be  it  observed,  after  that  of 
Aaron,  but  "after  the  order  of  Melchisedec  :^^*  a  High  Priest, 
"  who  is  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  separate  from  sinners,  and  made 
higher  than  the  heavens."  '"  Query.  If,  according  to  the  above 
reasoning  of  the  apostle,  the  cii'cumstance  of  Christ's  own  presence 
on  earth,  would  nullify  his  priestly  office,  how  coidd  he,  as  is  af- 
firmed by  prelatists,  transfer  that  office  to  mere  mortals,  with 
authority  to  perpetuate  it  to  the  end  of  time  ?     Would  he,  could 

(5)  Heb.  8  : 3.     (2)  Heb.  5  :  1-3.      (3)  Heb.  2  :  7.     (4)  Heb.  9  :  26.     (5)  Heb.  13  :  12.     (6)  Heb.  9  : 
24.     (7)  Heb.  8  :  4.     (8)  Heb.  4  :  14.     (9)  Heb.  7  :  21.     (10)  Hob.  7  :  24-36. 


197 

he,  authorize  them  to  do  what  he  could  not  do  himself  f  How  idle, 
how  preposterous,  then,  to  pretend  the  perpetuation  of  an  epis- 
copo-priestly  ministry  on  earth,  antitypal  to  that  under  the  law  ! 

But,  as  further  evidence  of  the  fallacy  of  this  pretense,  we  re- 
mark, 

3. — That  there  is  a  total  absence  of  all  analogy  between  cither  tlie 
orders  or  iJie  functions  of  the  Christian  ministry^  and  that  of  the 
Aaronic  priesthood.     We  shall  apply  this  test, 

I.  To  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Anglican  Church.* 
First,  its  Orders.  These  are  divided  into  two  degrees,  the 
higher^  that  of  bishop  and  archbishop ;  and  the  lower^  that  of 
canon,  prebend,  dean,  and  archdeacon.  But  the  rite  of  ordination 
being  confined  to  the  three  orders  of  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon, 
the  analogy,  so  far  as  number  is  concerned,  has  the  merit,  at  least, 
of  a  correspondence  to  that  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  thus  : — ■ 

BEFORE  THE  CRUCIFIXION.  AFTER  THE  CRUCIFIXION. 

Jewish.  Christian. 

High  Priest,           .         .  Jesus  Christ.  High  Priest,  .         .  Apostles. 

Priests,      .         .  The  Twelve.               Priests,  .  .  Priests. 

Levites,         .         .  Tlie  Seventy.               Levites,  .        .  Deacons. 

But  beyond  this,  in  the  very  point  most  essential  to  the  support 
of  the  dogma  of  apostolical  succession  attempted  to  be  built  upon 
said  theory  of  analogy,  there  is  a  total  failure.  The  high  priest, 
under  the  law,  was  the  only  one  of  his  order.  He  stood  alone 
during  his  natural  life.  Where  then  the  analogy  between  that 
order  and  "  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb,"  together  with  the 
myriads  upon  myriads  who,  since  their  day,  have  said,  and  still 
"  say,  that  they  are  apostles"  ?  In  regard  to  the  other  orders,  it 
were  a  waste  of  time  and  paper  further  to  pursue  this  subject  of 
analogy;  and  especially,  since  Bishop  Griswold  has  omitted  to 
supply,  in  his  statement,  an  antitype  answerable  to  the  second 
order  of  the  alleged  type  ;f  while  Bishop  McCoskrey  throws  out 
of  the  account  the  seventy  disciples,  upon  the  ground  that  "their 
commission  had  expired  prior  to  the  crucifixion  of  Christ.":]: 
Query,     How  will  prelatists  7-epair  this  chasm  ? 

Perhaps,  however,  the  antitype  will  share  a  better  fate,  when 
put  to  the  test  of  a  resemblance  between. 

Second,  their  functions.  Bishop  G-riswold,  in  treating  of  the 
subject  of  the  type,  not  only  speaks  of  the  three  orders  of  that 
priesthood,  but  of  their  "  different  and  distinct  powers  (or  func- 
tions) and  duties."!  ^7  ^^^^  we  are  of  course  to  understand,  that 
the  things  foreshadowed  therein  hold  good  in  respect  to  the  alleged 

♦  The  same,  of  course,  will  apply  equally  to  the  Episcopacy  of  the  American 
Church. 

t   Bishop  Griswold's  Sermon,     p.  5. 

J  Sermon.     Episcopal  Bishops  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  etc.     p.  12. 

j  Bishop  Griswold  on  Apostolic  Succession,     pp.  -5,  6. 


198 

antitype.  Now,  that  Christ,  as  the  great  antitypal  High  Priest, 
verified  in  his  own  person  both  the  orders  and  the  functiotis  of  the 
type,  there  can  be  no  dispute.  But  the  theory  of  analogy  as 
above,  alleges  the  transfer  by  Christ  to  the  apostles  prior  to  his  as- 
cension, of  the  very  order  and  functions  with  which  IIe  had  been 
invested  of  the  Father.  Thus,  Bishop  Griswold,  Christ  "  appoints 
them  (the  apostles^  to  the  office  which  he  was  leaving."*  Bishop 
McCoskrey.  "  Tne  Savior,"  says  he,  "  exercised  the  office  of 
HIGH  riiiEST,"  and  "he  transferred  it  to  the  apostles,"  who  "  were 
raised  up  to  it  as  he  was  about  returning  to  heaven.  They  then 
stood  as  his  representatives^  and  arranged  the  ministry  after  the 
model  which  he  himself  had  followed,  viz.,  in  accordance  with  the 
ministry  of  the  Church,  as  it  existed  prior  to  his  coming  ;"f  that 
is,  as  the  antitype  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  in  its  orders  and 
functions.  An  hypothesis  this,  we  repeat,  which,  as  its  sequence, 
makes  the  orders  and  functions  of  the  Christian  ministry  strictly 
priestly — a  priesthood,  after  the  order  of  Aaron,  Episcopacy — 
our  Low  Church  brethren  being  judge, — episcopacy  is  nothing  with- 
out it.  Take  away  its  priestly  character,  and  it  topples  to  the 
ground.     It  is  its  life,  the  mainspring  of  all  its  workings. 

But,  the  two  ministries,  "  In  what  do  they  resemble  each  other  ? 
"Did  the  high  jjriest  ordain  the  priests?  No.  Did  he  confirm  the 
people  ?  No.  Had  he  the  exclusive  right  of  government  ?  No. 
On  the  other  hand :  Do  the  bishops  discharge  any  duty  analogous 
to  the  offering  up  of  the  yearly  sacrifices  on  the  great  day  of 
expiation?  No.  Have  they  the  peculiar  privilege  of  entering 
into  the  immediate  presence  of  God  ?  No.  Is  the  order  of  God 
attached  to  their  persons  ?  or  have  they  any  special  right  of  de- 
claring the  divine  will?  No.  He  who  has  sagacity  enough  to 
detect,  in  the  appropriate  functions  of  the  high  priest,  anything 
tliat  deserves  to  be  called  a  type  of  the  functions  of  a  Christian 
bishop,  can  never  be  at  a  loss  for  types  and  antitypes,  so  long  as 
any  two  objects  remain  within  the  Bible  or  without  it.  Their 
prerogatives  and  offices  are  so  absolutely  dissimilar,  that  to  make 
one  tlie  image  of  the  other,  is  to  pour  overwhelming  ridicule  upon 
the  whole  system  of  typical  ordinances.  The  success  will  not  be 
much  better,  if  we  go  down  to  the  second  or  third  grades  of  the 
priesthood.  If  the  reader  has  an  hour  which  he  cannot  employ 
more  prolitabl}^,  he  may  throw  it  away  in  hunting  for  likenesses 
between  the  priests  of  the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  between  the  Levite 
and  the  episcopal  deacon.":}:  Thus  argued  that  distinguished  divine. 
Dr.  Mason.  His  reasoning  has  never  yet  been  answered.  Pass 
we  now  to  an  application  of  the  above  test, 

11.     To  the  Episcopacy  of  the  Romish  Church.     And, 

*  Bishop  Griswold  on  Apostolic  Succession,     p.  6. 

t  Sermon.     Episcopal  Bishops  the  Successors,  etc.     p.  12. 

X  Christian  Magazine.     Vol.  I.     p.  320.     Edited  by  Dr.  Mason. 


199 

First,  its  Orders.  These  are  seven  in  number,  and  are  divided 
into  minor  and  greater.  Of  the  minor  are  the  four  following,  viz., 
porter,  reader,  exorcist,  acolyte.  The  three  greater  are,  the  sub 
deacon,  the  deacon,  and  the  priest.  But  the  Council  of  Trent, 
which  determined  the  number  of  the  orders,  in  its  catechism 
dilates  the  highest  order,  that  of  the  priest^  dividing  it  into  the  five 
following  degrees,  viz.,  priests,  bishops,  archbishops,  patriarchs, 
and  THE  SOVEREIGN  PONTIFF,  whom  Cj'ril,  Archbishop  of  Alex- 
andria, denominated  in  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  "  The  father  and 
patriarch  of  the  whole  world"  ! 

But,  agreeably  to  the  declaration  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  that 
"  the  order  of  the  priesthood,"  though  of  "  different  degrees  of  digni- 
ty and  power,"  is,  nevertheless,  "  essentially  one  :"  in  point  of 
consistency^  has  the  decided  advantage  in  the  matter  of  analogy  in 
this  particular  over  that  of  the  Protestant  theory ;  the  Pope,  as 
the  vicegerent  of  Christ  upon  earth  and  the  only  Head  of  the 
Church,  answering  to  the  one  only  High  Priest.  Speaking  of  the 
other  theory,  a  recent  writer  has  well  and  truly  observed : — "  The 
high  priesthood  must  have  but  one  incumbent,  and  the  bishop's 
order  must  have  more  than  one ;  and  if  so,  how  could  the  former 
be  the  type  of  the  latter  ?  There  is  no  getting  rid  of  the  difficul- 
ty which  this  Adew  presents.  If  a  type  and  antitype  must  resem- 
ble each  other  at  all,  then  it  is  not  possible,  that  the  one  high 
priest  of  the  Mosaic  economy  was  intended  to  prefigure  the  hun- 
dreds of  bishops,  who  are  in  ofiice,  at  the  same  thne,  in  the  prelat- 
ical  system.""  It  is  no  marvel,  therefore,  in  tracing  the  practical 
workings  of  this  theory,  to  discover,  under  its  Tractariun  form, 
the  adoption,  whole  and  entire,  of  the  Komish  claim.  Hence  their 
(the  Tractarians)  quotation  from  Johnson  on  Unbloody  Sacrifice, 
who  says  that  "  Cyprian,  and  others,  represent  the  whole  college 
of  bishops  throughout  the  world  as  one  person,  sitting  in  one 
chair,  attending  upon  one  altar,^^-[  etc. 

It  needs  no  argument  to  prove  that  the  Romish  Church  claims 
for  its  ministry, 

Second,  pnestly  fmict ions.  Of  this  fact,  there  is  no  attempt  on 
the  part  of  the  papist  at  concealment  or  evasion.  "  He  makes  the 
terms  priest,  altar,  sacrifice,  as  fully  significant  when  applied  to 
the  New  Testament  ministry,  as  they  were  when  used  to  denote 
the  Jewish.  The  Council  of  Trent  have  not  accommodated  the 
meaning  of  the  words — retaining  the  name  and  discarding  the 
substaiice^' — the  Jesuitism,  we  affirm,  of  Pjrotestant  Episcopacy  ; 
— "  but  boldly,  affirmed,  that  there  is  no  real  difference  between 
the  sacrifice  of  Christ  on  the  cross,  and  in  the  mass — the  difference 
being  only  circumstantial,  the  one  an  offering  made  by  himself,  the 
other  by  the  ministry  of  the  priest.":j: 

■*  SnodgTuss  on  the  Apost.  Succ,  p.  148.  t  f'ee  p.  190. 

X  Hist,  of  Councils,  Lib.  6,  p.  455,  as  quoted  by  Duffield  oj  Episccopacy,  p.  60. 


200 

To  the  preceding,  we  add  another  argument,  as  further  demon- 
strative of  the  futiUty  of  this  theory  of  analogy.     It  is  founded 

4.  On  the  absolute  perfection  of  the  antitypal  sacrifice  of  Christ. 
Hear  Paul  on  tliis  subject.  "  Every  high  priest"  of  the  Aaronic 
order  "  standeth  daily  ministering  and  offering  oftentimes  the  same 
sacrifices,  which  can  never  take  away  sins :  but  this  man,"  Jesus 
Christ,  "after  he  had  offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins,  forever  sat 
down  on  the  right  hand  of  God  ;  from  henceforth  expecting,  till 
his  enemies  be  made  his  footstool ;  for  ly  one  offering  he  hath  per- 
fected forever  them  that  are  sanctified^' 

Now,  the  argument  here  is,  that,  though  our  blessed  Lord  took 
not  the  "  honor"  of  his  priestly  ofiice  "  unto  himself,"  but  was 
"  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron;"''  yet,  inasmuch  as  "perfection" 
was  not  "  by  the  Levitical  priesthood,"  (it  being  "  evident  that  our 
Lord  sprang  out  of  Juda.,  of  which  tribe  Moses  spake  nothing  con- 
cerning priesthood),"^  there  was  a  needs-be  "  that  another  jDriest 
should  rise"  after  another  order  than  that  of  Aaron,  whose  priest- 
hood, though  perpetuated  by  succession,  was  nevertheless  limited. 
The  functions  of  Christ  as  our  "High  Priest  over  the  house  of  God" 
"  in  the  heavens,"^  must  necessarily  be  perpetual.  Another  "  simil- 
itude" than  that  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  therefore,  is  employed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  denote  it,  even  that  of  "Melchisedec,"  who, 
being  "  without  father,  without  mother,  without  descent,  having 
neither  beginning  of  days,  nor  end  of  life ;  but,  made  like  anto  the 
Son  of  God,  ahideth  a  priest  continually T'"  Yes,  Jesus  Christ, 
"  who  is  made"  a  High  Priest,  "  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  com- 
mandment, but  after  the  power  of  an  endless  life,""  required  such 
a  "  similitude  to  denote  it.  Hence  "  He  testifieth.  Thou  art  a 
priest /ivrey*?/",  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec."'  Christ,  therefore, 
"  because  he  continueth  ever.,  hath  an  unchangeahle  priesthood."' 
And,  in  this  consists  its  perfection.  Finally,  on  this  subject,  we 
add, 

5.  That  there  is  a  total  absence  of  all  scriptural  evidence^  that 
Jesus  Christy  as  is  alleged^  ever  did  transfer  his  priestly  office  and 

fmctions  to  his  apostles.,  with  power  to  transmit  them  to  others  as 
their  successors  to  the  end  of  time.  If  what  the  Scriptures  affirm 
of  the  nature  and  end  of  the  office  and  functions  of  Christ,  as  the 
antitypal  "  High  Priest  of  our  profession"  as  shown  above,  be  true, 
— that  though,  as  connected  with  His  expiation  of  human  guilt  by 
the  sacrifice  of  Himself  "  without  the  gate,"  His  work  commenced 
on  earth,  yet  that  the  sphere  of  its  exercise  is  confined  to  "  the 
heavens"  as  our  Intercessor  at  the  right  hand  of  God;  and  also, 
that  the  "  one  sacrifice"  which  He  offered  "  for  sin"  was  in  itself 
complete,  "  perfecting  forever  them  that  are  sanctified,"  and  there- 
by constituting  Him  "  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith ;" 
then,  it  is  not  possible  that  He  could  have  delegated  that  office  and 

(1)  Hch.  10  :  n-14.     (2)  Heb.  5  :  4,  5.     (3)  Heb.  7  :  14.    (4)  Heb.  10  :  01.     (5)  Heb.  7  :  15  ;  and  v.  3. 
(6)  Heb.  7  ;  16.     (7)  Heb.  7  :  17  ;  5  :  6,  10  ;  7  :  11,  21.     (8)  Heb.  7  :  24. 


201 

those  functions  to  any  mere  mortals.  We  look  in  vain  for  any 
such  evidence  in  the  terms  of  the  commission  given  by  Christ  to 
his  apostles.  And,  if  we  look  heyond  that  commission,  where,  we 
deferentially  ask,  is  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament  any,  the 
least,  allusion,  to  the  existence  of  "  priesthood  and  of  priest,  of 
altars  and  of  sacrifices,"  or  "any  sacrificial  language  and  ceremo- 
nies pertaining  to  divine  worship  and  the  sacraments,"  as  that  ad- 
vocated on  the  hypothesis  either  of  the  Romanist,  the  Tractarian, 
or  the  High  or  Low  Churchman  ?  The  Church  of  Christ  has,  in- 
deed, her  altar,  and  sacrifice,  and  priesthood.  But,  this  priesthood 
slays  no  victim.  It  is  "  an  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up,"  on  the 
altar  of  faith,  "  spiritual  sacrtfia-s^  acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus 
Christ."'  And,  it  is  a  priesthood  common  to  the  whole  body  of 
the  called  and  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  who,  "  as  lively  stones, 
are  built  up  a  spiritual  house."*  Our  blessed  Lord,  having  "once 
in  the  end  of  the  world  appeared,  to  put  away  sin  by  the  sacrifice 
of  himself,"  "  there  is  no  more  offering  for  sin."'  He  retains,  «Vi 
Ms  own  person,  the  everlasting  sacerdotal  order  of  Melchisedec ; 
and  has  given  to  his  Church,  not  a  new  order  of  sacrificing  priests, 
but  an  order,  which,  as  we  have  shown,  from  its  very  structure, 
was  every  way  calculated,  as  it  was  evidently  designed,  to  guard 
those  holding  it  from  an  invasion  of  his  immutable  bights. 

In  conclusion,  then,  on  the  subject  of  this  alleged  correspondence 
between  the  Christian  ministry  and  the  Aaronic  priesthood  as  its 
type,  we  are  compelled  to  accord  to  the  Romish  theory,  the  merit 
of  the  greater  consistency.  In  that  form,  it  is  JUDAISM,  meta- 
morphosed into,  and  baptized  b}^,  a  Christian  name !  Her  priestly 
orders,  arrayed  in  their  gorgeous  vestments,  and  offering  upon  the 
summit  of  her  altar  the  unbloody  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  and  the 
salvation  which  she  claims  to  dispense  to  the  faithful  in  virtue 
thereof,  is  but  the  higher  form  of  development  of  that  system  of 
episcopacy,  originally  introduced  on  the  ground  of  expediency 
alone.  While,  therefore,  we  sympathize  with,  we  cannot  but  admit 
that  our  Low  Church  brethren  render  themselves  justly  liable  to, 
that  imputation  of  inconsistency .^  so  liberally  cast  upon  them  by 
their  Tractarian  and  Romish  allies.  To  illustrate  this  matter.  The 
evangelical  advocates  of  prelacy  in  both  hemispheres,  aware  that 
the  genius  of  the  Judaic  system  consisted  in  its  elevating  the  ex- 
ternal ordinances  and  rites  of  the  Church  above  and  beyond  their 
original  design,  teaching,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Judaizing  corrup- 
ters of  the  faith  in  the  Galatian  church,  that,  "  except  a  man  be 
circumcised  and  keep  the  law  of  Moses,  he  cannot  be  saved  :"* 
stro'ngly  inveigh,  against  the  introduction  into  "the  Church"  within 
the  last  twelve  or  fifteen  years,  by  the  Oxford  Tractators,  of  an 
order  of  things,  calculated,  as  they  are  designed,  to  unpkotes- 
TANTizE  the  Church;  for  example,  unduly  elevating  the  sacra- 
ments— baptism  and  the  holy  eucharist — by  investing  them  wdth 

(1)  1  Peter  2  :  5.     (2)  1  Peter  2  :  5.     (3)  Heb.  10  :  18.     (4)  Acts  15  :  1. 


202 

an  opus  ojperatmn  as  channels  for  the  conferment  of  saving  grace, 
and  the  consequent  inculcating  the  heretical  dogmas  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  transubstantiation,  priestly  absolution,  etc.  etc.  together 
with  the  revival  of  numerous  Komish  ceremonials,  customs,  and  the 
like. 

Now,  in  these  protestations,  accompanied,  as  they  have  been  and 
still  are,  witli  the  most  commendable  efforts  to  arrest  their  progress, 
these  brethren  share  in  our  deepest  sympathies.  But,  the  retoi't 
courteous^  from  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  we  are  constrained  to 
say,  has  been  as  consistent  as  it  is  emphatic. 

Episcopacy,  say  the  Tractators,  being  founded  in  its  analogy  to 
the  Aaronic  orders,  and  as  such,  engrafted,  by  Christ  himself,  into 
the  constitution  of  the  Church  as  modeled  by  himself  and  his  apos- 
les,  is,  in  all  its  essential  features,  a  priesthood.  And,  they  thence 
argue,  that  the  analogy,  to  hold  good,  involves  the  perpetuity  of 
priests,  altars,  sacrifices,  etc. 

But,  that  argument,  as  we  have  shown,  is  advanced  as  the  hasis 
of  prelatical  episcopacy  alike  by  the  Low  Church  or  Evangelical 
party,  as  by  those  of  the  High  Church  and  Tractarian  schools. 

Hence  their  demand  of  their  Low  Church  brethren,  the  follow- 
ing tribute  to  consistency — either,  first,  an  adherence,  as  good 
Churchmen,  to  ALL  the  principles  involved  in  an  application  of  the 
type  to  the  things  signified ;  or,  second,  a  surrender  of  the  argument 
of  analogy  in  its  defense. 

This,  however,  would  be  to  surrender  the  entire  Episcopal 
scheme,  and  would  place  them  on  the  platform  of  that  simply  fra- 
ternal and  pastoral  system  of  ecclesiastical  polity,  presbytery, 
the  antipode  of  its  sacerdotal  claims.  Between  these,  as  we  have 
said,  there  is  no  via  media.*  We  must  insist  that  episcopacy,  on 
the  ground  of  expediency  alone,  is  utterly  indefensible. f  We 
must  also  insist,  that,  to  retain  episco23acy  as  founded  in  its  anti- 
typal  correspondence  to  the  Aaronic  orders,  and  avoid  the  danger 
of  a  collapse  into  the  Judaico- Romanic  system,  is  as  consistent 
as  to  hope  for  the  preservation  of  sound  health  in  the  midst  of 
a  pestilential  atmosphere.  Between  it  and  "pure  Protestantism," 
there  is  not  one  congenial  element.  The  four  antagonistic  theo- 
ries of  it  as  exhibited  above,  viewed  controversially  in  its  unnatu- 
ral alliance  with  pure  Protestantism,  is  a  gordian  knot  which  never 
can  be  untied ;  it  must  be  CUT.  Those  earthquake  commotions 
which,  superinduced  by  this  unnatural  alliance,  have  so  repeatedly, 
since  the  time  of  Archbishop  Laud,  shaken  the  Anglican  hierarchy 
and  her  adopted  daughter  in  America  to  their  center,  furnish  the 
evidence  that  nothing  short  of  a  total  divorcennent  of  the  two,  can 
ever  restore  quietude  within  her  distracted  pale. 

Our  sincere  regard  for  their  spiritual  welfare,  and  their  speedy 
relief  from  this  uncomfortable  dilemma,  induces  the  utterance  of  the 
prayer  in  their  behalf — May  the  Lokd  "  hasten  it  m  his  time  1" 

*  See  Introduction,  pp.  4-6,  35. 

t  See,  on  this  subject,  the  section  next  following. 


208 


CHAPTER  ni. 

OF  THE  ALLEGED  POWERS  OF  THE  PRELATICAL  PRIESTHOOD. 
SECTION   L 

The  apostolical  powers,  if  continued,  must  be  exercised  whole  and  entire. — Division  of 
their  functions  by  prelatists  into  extraordinary  and  ordinary. — Bishops  Taylor 
Griswold,  and  Mcllvaine  on. — Design  of. — Fallacy  of. — Dr.  Barrow  and  Cardinal 
Beliarmine  on. — Prelatical  dilemnia. — Though  they  deny  the  continuance  of  the  ex- 
traordinaty  functions  apostolic,  yet  claim  to  exercise  the  highest  of  their  miraculous 
powers,  namely,  that  of  conferring  "  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." — Proofs,  quotas 
tions  from — 1st :  The  Romanists— 2d  :  Tractarians — 3d :  High  Church ;  Bishop 
Jeremy  Taylor — 4th :  Low  Church ;  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  (Ordinal  of  Or- 
dination.)— Discretionary  form  of. — Remarks  on. — Bishop  Mcllvaine. — Policy  of 
the  above  scheme. 

From  the  evidence  furnished  in  the  preceding  section,  of  the 
IDENTITY  of  the  Prelatico- Episcopal  theor\^,  Romish,  Tractarian, 
and  High  and  Low  Church,  at  least,  in  all  its  essential  features  as 
a  Christianized  sacerdotal  priesthood ;  we  leave  the  reader  to  de- 
cide upon  the  merits  of  our  arguments,  demonstrative  of  its 
fallacy. 

This,  however,  is  but  one  feature  of  the  system.  We  have  thus 
far  only  considered  its  alleged  sacerdotal  character  in  the  ahstract. 
We  have  now  to  lay  before  the  reader,  what  the  same  classes  of 
advocates  respectively  claim  in  behalf  of 

THE   POWERS   OF   THAT   PRIESTHOOD. 

We  have  assumed,  as  indispensable  to  the  support  of  the  prelati- 
cal dogma  of  an  unbroken  apostolical  succession,  the  proof  of  its 
possession,  lohole  and'  entire^  of  whatever  constituted  the  original 
apostolical  functions,  pre-eminent  among  which,  was  their  power 
to  confer  on  others  the 

GIFT  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.* 

Now,  we  are  aware,  that,  in  order  to  evade  the  above  sequence  of 
this  theory,  some  of  its  advocates  institute  a  distinction  between 
the  original  functions  apostolic,  alleging,  that  some  were  extraordi- 

*  See  pp.  182-183. 


2M 

nary,  some  ordinary;  and,  that  the  latter  only^  constituted  the 
OFP'iCE  apostolic  which  was  transferred  to  their  successors.*  Thus 
Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor :  "  In  the  extraordinary  privileges  of 
the  apostles  they  had  no  successors,  therefore  of  necessity  a  suc- 
cessor must  be  constituted  in  the  ordinary  office  of  apostolate. 
Now  what  is  this  ordinary  office  ? — Preaching,  baptizing,  conse- 
crating, ordaining,  and  governing. "f  Bishop  Griswold  :  "•  Christ 
did  not  promise  that  the  working  of  miracles  should  continue  to 
the  end  of  the  world,  but  that  he  would  always  be  with  the  office. 
Working  miracles  was  not  their  office. — It  was  to  preach,  to  bap- 
tize, to  lay  on  hands,  and  to  govern  the  church.":}:  Bishop  Mcll- 
vaine  :  "  The  essential  office  of  the  apostles,  sent  to  subdue  and 
establish,  and  rule,  as  ambassadors  of  Christ,"  the  Bishop  argues 
at  considerable  length,  must  not  "be  confounded  with  those  extra- 
ordinary endowments,  and  all  that  striking  array  of  miraculous 
powers  with  which  they  were  famished  for  their  enterprise." 
Speaking  of  these  latter,  he  says,  "  Essential  to  its  success  in  those 
days,  they  undoubtedly  were  ;  bat  essential  to  its  nature,  they  cer- 
taiulj"  were  not.  We  must  not  confound  authority  to  act,  with  the 
means  of  acting  successfully,"  etc.  And,  he  tells  us,  that  "  the 
authentic  voucher  of  office  is  the  commission,"  etc.§ 

A  convenient  door  of  escape,  this,  from  the  responsibility  of 
performing  some  acts  apostolic — for  example,  that  of  speaking  with 
tongues,  healing  the  sick,  raising  the  dead,  etc.  By  thus  summa- 
rily disposing  of  these,  as  mere  temporary  appendages  of  the  origi- 
nal office,  they  furnish  a  plausible  pretext,  to  say  the  least,  on  which 
to  assume  that  the  system  of  Prelatical  Episcopacy  stands  on  a 
level  with  the  apostolic  office — in  other  words,  that  bishops  are  to 
be  regarded  as  apostles.  Others,  it  is  said,  wrought  miracles  be- 
sides the  apostles.  "  Even  laymen  did  that."||  It  is  hence  con- 
tended, that  "  as  we  cannot  argue  there  are  no  presbyters,  and 
deacons,  and  private  Christians  now,  because  they  have  no  longer 
power  to  work  miracles  as  they  are  recorded  once  to  have  done  ; 
so  neither  can  it  be  argued  there  are  no  apostles  noio^  because  they 
possess  no  longer  the  supernatural  poAvers  which  distinguished  the 
original  apostles." 

But,  we  ask  :  Of  those  acts  which  prelatists  admit  to  have  con- 
stituted the  ordinary  office  of  the  apostles  ;  did  they  preach,  speak, 
write,  baptize,  ordain,  govern,  etc.  as  ordinary  men?  This  must 
be  conceded,  or,  on  the  hypothesis  of  an  alleged  transfer  of  their 
OFFICE  as  constituted  of  these  functions,  their  so-called  successors 
must  inherit  from  them  the  same  inspiration — a  miraculous  en- 
dowment— under  which  the}^  preached,  etc. ;  otherwise,  there  is  no 
ministry  in  the  Church  noio^  because  men  no  longer  preach,  etc.  by 
inspiration, 

*  See  p.  184.  f  Episc.  Assert,  p.  14,  etc. 

X  Griswold  on  Apost.  Sure.    Tracts  on  the  Church,  No.  I.,  p.  7. 

\  The  Argument  for  the  Apost.  Succ.    By  Bp.  Mcllvaine.  Albany,  1843.  pp.  4,  ^,  etc. 

II  Griswold's  Apost.  Succ.     Tract  No.  I.,  p.  7. 


206 

It  had  been  -well  for  prelatists,  who  display  so  much  ingenuity 
in  distinguishing  between  things  which  do  not  differ,  had  they  dis- 
covered another  distinction :  that,  we  mean,  between  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  miraculous  powers  apostolic,  and  those  of  pres- 
byters, deacons,  and  private  Christians.  With  the  former,  super- 
natural endowments  were  conferred  as  the  signs  of  their  apostle- 
ship.  They  were  therefoi'e  conferred  for  the  express  j^urpose  of 
confirming  the  inspired  teachings  and  other  acts  apostolic.  They 
were  the  proofs  of  their  inspiration.  They  hence  formed  a  part, 
not  only,  but,  as  we  have  elsewhere  said,*  they  constitute  the  very 
basis  of  the  apostolic  commission.  Without  these  poavers  they 
WERE  NOT  APOSTLES.  What,  "  the  commission,''  (Matt.  28  :  18,  19, 
20,)  independenth^,  "  the  authentic  voucher  of  office  ?"  The  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  has  decided  otherwise.  "  If  a  man  bear  witness  of 
himself,  his  mtness  is  not  true.'"  "  The  commission,"  therefore, 
we  affirm,  proclaimed  by  the  apostles  by  the  word  of  mouth  or  ex- 
hibited on  a  piece  of  parchment,  unaccompanied  by  an  "  authentic 
voucher,"  had  forever  remained  a  dead  letter.  The  ajjostleslivp  of 
Peter  and  his  compeers,  as  predicated  of  this  commission  as  given, 
Matt.  28  :  18,  19,  20,  we  have  shown,  so  far  as  connected  with  the 
instance  of  his  and  of  their  agency  in  the  appointment  of  Mat- 
thias, f  was  null  and  void^  for  the  simple  reason  that  their  official 
functions  were  incomplete^  till  the  descent  upon  them  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  Before  the  crucifixion,  the  official 
functions  apostolic  embraced,  in  common,  those  of  preaching^ 
teacliing^  baptizing^  and  the  worhing  of  miracles.  "  And  he  or- 
dained twelve — that  he  might  send  them  forth  to  preach,  and  to 
have  power  to  heal  sickness  and  cast  out  devils."'  Thus  Mark;  so 
also  Luke :  "  And  he  called  the  twelve  disciples  together,  and 
gave  them  power  and  authority  over  all  devils,  and  to  cure  dis- 
eases, and  he  sent  them  to  j)reach  the  kingdom  of  God."  Accord- 
ingly "they  went  through  the  towns,  preaching  the  gospel,  and 
healing  everywhere.'"  After  the  resurrection,  Christ  expressly 
"  commanded  them  that  they  should  not  depart  fi-om  Jerusalem, 
but  WAIT  for  the  promise  of  the  Father"  in  reference  to  their  fidl 
endoioment  of  official  "power,"  by  their  being  ^^  baptized  with  the, 
Holt  Ghost."*  And,  this  official  "  power"  conferred,  and,  pre- 
eminent among  the  signs  of  their  apostleship,  Avas  their  "  power" 
to  confer  on  others,  not,  mark,  the  official  "  power"  itself,  which, 
as  we  have  elsewhere  shown,  was  absolutely  incommunicable,:};  but, 
THE  GIFT  OF  THK  HoLT  Ghost.  Truc,  this  gift,  upou  whomsocvcr 
conferred,  as  in  the  instances  of  the  Samaritan  converts  by  Peter,' 
and  of  the  disciples  of  Ephesus  by  Paul,*  included  miraculous  en- 
dowments. But,  being  derived  from,  they  were  inferior  to,  the 
"  power"  which  bestowed  them. 

(1)  John  5  .  31.     (2)  Mark  3  :  14,  15  :  see  also  chap,  f)  :  7-13.     (3)  Luke  9  :  1-6.    (4)  Acts  1  :  4,  5. 
6      (5)  Acts  8  :  14-17.     (6)  Acts  19  : 1-7. 

*  See  Part  II.,  pp.  111-116.        t  See  Part  II.,  pp.  133-138.         t  See  pp.  107-114. 


206 

If,  then,  the  fact  that  those  who  preached,  baptized,  ordained,  etc., 
in  virtue  of  authority  which  they  derived  from  the  apostles,  clothed 
them  with  apostolical  functions,  it  follows  from  the  above  reasoning, 
(and  in  regard  to  which  we  challenge  refutation,)  that  those,  yea, 
even  private  Christians  not  excepted,  who  derived  the  power  to 
work  miracles  from  the  same  source,  ar'e  also  apostles.  Surely, 
prelatists  need  not  be  at  a  loss  after  this,  for  materiel  out  of  which 
to  coin  New  Testament  apostles  ! 

We  must,  in  passing,  beg  to  introduce  to  the  reader's  notice  the 
following  on  this  subject,  from  the  learned  Dr.  Barrow.  In  his 
work  on  "  the  Pope's  Supremacy,"  (of  standard  authority  with 
Episcopalians,)  speaking  of  the  nature,  design,  and  end  of  the 
apostolical  office  compared  with  that  of  a  bishop,  he  says,  "  The 
OFFICES  of  an  apostle  and  a  bishop  are  not  well  consistent,  for 
the  apostleship  is  an  extraordinary  office^  charged  with  the  in- 
struction and  government  of  the  whole  world,  and  calling  for  an 
answerable  care" — "  but  episcopacy  is  an  ordinary  charge,  affixed 
to  one  place,"  etc.  And  again :  "  The  apostolical  office,  as  such, 
y{2L^  personal  and  temporary^  and  therefore,  according  to  its  nature 
and  design,  not  successive  and  communicable  to  others  in  per- 
petual descendance  from  them.  It  was,  as  such,  in  all  respects 
extraordinary,  conferred  in  a  special  manner,  designed  for  special 
purposes,  discharged  by  special  aids,  endowed  with  spjecial  privi- 
leges, and  was  needful  for  the  propagation  of  Christianity  and 
founding  of  churches,"  etc.  Then  follows  his  enumeration  of  what 
constituted  the  marks  of  an  apostle.  These  may  be  found  in  this 
Treatise,  Part  II.,  p.  109.  He  then  adds  :  "  Now,  such  an  office, 
consisting  of  so  many  extraordinary  privileges  and  miraculous 
powers,  which  were  requisite  for  the  founding  of  the  Church  and 
the  diffusion  of  Christianity,  against  the  manifold  difficulties  and 
disadvantages  which  it  must  needs  encounter,  was  not  designed  to 
continue  hy  derivation^  for  it  containeth  in  it  divers  things  w^hich 
apparently  were  not  communicated,  and  which  no  man  without 

GROSS    imposture    AND    HYrOCRISY    COULD    CHALLENGE   TO    HIMSELF," 

"Neither,"  he  adds,  "did  the  apostles  pretend  to  communicate  it : 
they  did,  indeed,  appoint  standing  pastors  and  teachers  in  each 
church  ;  they  did  assume  fellow-laborers,  or  assistants,  in  the  work 
of  preaching  and  governance,  but  they  did  not  constitute  apostles 
equal  to  themselves  in  authority,  privileges,  or  gifts,  for,  who 
knoweth  not"  (saith  St.  Austin)  "  that  principate  of  apostleship  is 
to  be  preferred  before  any  episcopacy."  And  he  then  quotes  from 
the  Romish  Bellarmine  the  following,  on  the  same  subject :  "  The 
bishops  have  no  true  apostolical  authority.  Wherefore,  St.  Peter, 
who  had  no  other  office  mentioned  in  Scripture,  or  known  to  anti- 
quity, beside  that  of  an  apostle,  cotdd  not  have 2)TopeTly  and  ade- 
quately any  successor  to  his  office :  but  it  naturally  did  expire 

WITH  his  person,  AS  DID  THAT  OF  THE  OTHER  APOSTLES  !"* 

*  Dr.  Barrow,  on  the  Pope's  Supremacy,  pp.  63,  64,  65,  New  York  edition.  '84.'i. 


207 

We  leave  the  advocates  and  admirers  of  prelacy  to  reconcile 
Bishops  Taylor,  Griswold,  and  Mcllvaine,  with  Dr.  Barrow  and 
Bellarmine,  on  this  subject,  as  best  they  may.  We  repeat,  that  the 
apostles,  aware  of  the  nature,  design,  and  limits  of  their  official 
functio7is^  whatever  other  offices  they  instituted  as  connected  with 
"  the  work  of  the  ministry,"  yet  never  conferred  on  others  that 
"  power"  in  which  all  their  functions,  like  the  rays  of  light  to  the 
sun,  concentered,  the  power  to  confer  on  others  the  GiFr  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

Yet,  strange  to  say,  the  divorcement^  as  above,  of  the  miracu- 
lous powers  from  the  other  functions  apostolic,  as  a  mode  of  escape 
(adopted  by  the  above  writers)  from  the  consequences  to  which  we 
have  alluded,  as  following  the  admission  that  they  formed  a  part 
of  the  original  office,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  the  prelati- 
co-episcopal  s^ystem  advocated  by  them,  invol.ves,  in  the  exercise 
of  their  so-called  ordinary  apostolical  functions,  what  all  must  ad- 
mit to  have  constituted  the  HIGHEST  MIRACULOUS  ACT 
ever  put  forth  by  the  original  apostles  themselves — that,  we  mean, 
of  conferring  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost! 

Yea,  and  that,  as  we  shall  now  proceed  to  show,  holds  equall}' 
true  of  the  four  phases  of  the  system,  Romish,  Tractarian,  and 
High  and  Low  Church. 

1.  The  Romish.  The  fourth  section  of  the  fourth  Canon  of  the 
Decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  is  as  follows :  "  Whoever  shall 
affirm  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  given  by  ordination,  and  therefore, 
that  bishops  say  in  vain,  'Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost;'  or 
that  thereby  a  character  is  not  impressed  ;  let  him  be  accursed." 

2.  The  Oxford  Tractarian,  or  Puseyite  Scheme.  "  We  have 
confessed  before  God  our  belief,  that  through  the  bishop  who  or- 
dained us,  we  received  THE  HoLY  Ghost,  the  iMioer  to  bind  and 
to  loose,  to  administer  the  sacraments,  and  to  preach."* 

•  The  Bishop  of  Exeter  (Phillpotts),  in  commenting  on  the  "  Pre- 
face" to  the  Form  and  Manner  of  "  making,  ordaining,  and  conse- 
crating of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  according  to  the  order  of 
the  Church  of  England,"  holds  the  following  language  :  "  Of  im- 
position of  hands,  here  declared  to  be  necessary  to  valid  ordination, 
it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  Avhy  the  Church  should  thus  declare  it 
to  be  necessary,  unless  because  it  holds,  in  common  with  all 
acknowledged  branches  of  the  Catholic  Church  to  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  that  the  same  form  of  ordination,  in  other  words, 
the  giving  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  offices  of  the  Christian  ministry, 
which  was  observed  by  the  apostles  themselves,  was  also,  under 
the  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  transmitted  by  them  for  the  per- 
petual observance  of  the  Church,"  etc.f 

3.  High  Churchmen.     Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor.     "  The  summe 

*  Tracts  for  the  Times.     No.  I.     p.  2,  etc. 

t  Episcopal  Charge,  etc.,  by  the  Bishop  of  Exeter.  1839.  Bricknell's  Judgruent 
etc.     p.  277. 


208 

of  all  is  tills,  that  Clirist,  to  tlie  apostles,  gave  a  plenitude  of 
power,  for  tlie  wliole  commiasmi  was  given  to  them  in  as  great  and 
comprehensive  clauses  as  were  imaginable,  for  by  vertue  of  it, 
they  received  a  ijower  of  GIVING  THE  IIOLY  GIIOST  in  conjirmatixm^ 
and  of  giving  his  grace  in  the  collation  of  holy  orders^''''  etc. 
"  And  his  power,"  he  adds,  "  was  not  temporarv,  but  successive 
and  perpetuall,  and  was  intended  as  an  ordinary  office  in  the 
Church,"  etc.* 

4.  Low  Churchmen.  These,  in  their  adoption  and  use  of  "the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer"  of  the  Anglican  and  American  Epis- 
copal Church,  adopt  with  it  the  stereotyped  "form  and  manner  of 
ordering  priests,"  etc.,  as  therein  set  forth.  K"ow,  in  that  form,  the 
bishop,  in  the  act  of  imposing  hands  on  the  head  of  the  candidate 
for  priest's  orders,  says  thus:  "Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  ^or  the 
office  and  work  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of  God^^''  etc. 

True,  in  the  compilation  of  the  American  Prayer  Book  from  the 
Anglican  liturgy,  the  following  modified  "form"  was  appended 
for  the  discretionary  use  of  those  who  might  prefer  it :  "  TaJce 
thou  authority  to  execute  the  office  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of 
God,"  etc.,  an  addition,f  we  observe,  effected  through  the  influence 
of  Bishop  White,  Bishop  Seabury  finally  consenting,  though  with 
great  reluctance.:}: 

Now,  this  modified  discretionary  "  form,"  when  contrasted  with 
the  other,  at  first  sight  one  w^ould  suppose  was  the  offspring  of  a 
Presbyterian  adviser !  But,  we  ask,  in  the  first  place,  how  often  is 
it  used  as  a  substitute  for  the  other?  The  Avriter,  who  has  wit- 
nessed the  ordinations  of  many  priests  by  different  bishops,  does 
not  recollect  a  single  instance.  And,  that  it  is  considered  as  a 
mere  dead  letter,  we  think  may  be  safely  inferred  from  the  fact, 
that,  in  "the  form  of  ordaining  or  consecrating  a  hishop^''  the 
above  discretionary  "  form"  is  not  inserted!  But,  if  necessary  in 
the  ordination  of  a  priest,  why  not  in  the  consecration  of  a  hishop  ? 
If,  in  the  use  of  the  first  "  form,"  when  ordaining  a  priest,  there 
were  grounds  to  apprehend  the  exercise  of  a  function  imicarranted 
by  the  "  power"  claimed  to  have  been  derived  from  the  apostles, 
by  what  rule  is  the  exercise  of  that  power  justified  when  conse- 
crating a  bishop  ? 

Bishop  Mcllvaine,  however,  has  settled  the  matter  for  us.  In  a 
recent  sermon,  preached  at  the  consecration  of  Dr.  Upfold  as 
Bishop  of  Indiana,§  founded  on  Eph.  3:8,  "  Unto  me  who  am 
less  than  the  least  of  all  saints  is  this  grace  given,  that  I  should 
preach,"  etc.,  he  remarks  :  "  There  is  no  objection  to  the  supposition 
that  in  these  words  he  (Paul)  referred  partly  to  his  office  of  apostle- 
ship  as  a  grace.     In  receiving  it  (that  is,  the  ojice  of  apostleship), 

*  Bishop  Taylor's  Episcopacy  Asserted,     p.  46.     Oxford  edition.     1642.     Small  4to. 
t  An  addition  to,  we  observe,  not  an  alteration  of,  the  Anglican  form.     The  American 
Prayer  Book  still  retains  that  form. 

t  Bishop  White's  Memoirs  of  the  Church,     p.  203.     Philadelphia  edition.     1820. 
§  Reported  in  the  Protestant  Churchman  of  March  9th  and  16th,  1850. 


209 

he  in  a  certain  sense  received  the  Holy  Guost,  since  all  authority 
to  minister  in  the  Gospel  is  of  the  IIolj  Ghost,"  And  then,  in  a 
note  appended  to  said  sermon,  he  sajs,  "  nothing  more  than  this 
is  meant  by  the  language  of  the  office  for  the  consecration  of 
bishops,  '  Receive  the  PIoly  Ghost  for  the  office  and  work  of  a 
bishop,'  "  etc.  "  Nothing  more."  What  higJie?-  meaning,  pray,  could 
be  attached  to  said  language?  The  "  ojice  of  apostleship"  was  now 
about  to  be  conferred  on  Dr.  Upfold  through  the  ^^ grace'"  or  "gift 
of  THE  Holy  Ghost,"  by  the  imposition  of  hands  of  three  con- 
secrators  in  unbroken  succession  from  Paul,  from  whom  the 
"power"  of  "conferring"  said  "  grace"  was  especially  derived,  and 
of  whom  my  very  worthy  and  learned  friend.  Bishop  Mcllvaine, 
was  one.  The  occasion  required  at  his  hand,  a  vindication  of  the 
act.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  that  vindication  is  complete.  In  the 
same  note,  the  bishop  tells  us  that  the  "  substitute'^  allowed  to  be 
used  in  the  ordination  of  priests  is  of  similar  import  with  that  of 
the  original  form — "Eeceive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  etc. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  system  of  prelacy,  though  it  disclaims 
miraculous  powers  apostolic  in  behalf  of  their  alleged  successors, 
on  the  ground  that  they,  being  extraordinary,  were  hence  tempo- 
rary, and  therefore  formed  no  part  of  their  office,  yet  nevertheless 
claims  to  exercise  the  highest  miraculous  prerogative  of  the  apos- 
tolic college ! 

And,  we  submit,  whether,  to  a  thoughtful  mind,  the  reason  is  not 
obvious.  It  were  absurd  to  assume  the  7ia7ne  without  the  thi?ig* — 
the  office  without  the  functions.  Why  it  is  then,  that,  disclaiming 
the  lesser^  the  advocates  of  prelacy  at  the  same  time  arrogate  the 
exercise  of  the  greater^  of  the  functions  apostolic,  can,  so  far  as 
we  know,  be  accounted  for  on  no  other  principle  than  that  found 
in  the  difference  of  their  nature,  modes  of  operation,  and  effects. 
The  former  have  to  do  with  the  physical  world,  and  hence  are  tan- 
gible to  the  senses.  The  latter,  with  the  spiritual  world,  and  hence 
is  addressed  to  man's  faith.  The  assumption  of  the  apostolic  pre- 
rogatives, %ohol&  and  entire^  therefore,  must  be  authenticated  by 
their  casting  out  devils.,  speaking  with  tongues,  curing  diseases, 
raising  the  dead,  etc.,  or,  in  the  event  of  their  failure  to  do  so, 
work  out  a  tangible  demonstration  that  they  "  are  not  apostles." 
Creaturehood  proneness  to  credulity  and  superstition,  on  the  other 
hand,  has  rendered  man  a  more  ready  dupe  to  the  assumptions  of 
a  power  purely  s])iritual.  It  results,  that,  under  a  covert  denial 
of  the  continuance  of  miraculous  powers  in  the  Church,  that  as- 
cendency has  been  obtained  over  the  credulous  by  limiting  their 
claims  to  the  possession  of  this  latter  power,  which  similar  preten- 
sions to  the  former  had  defeated. 

*  See  Part  II.,  pp.  146-148. 

14 


SIO 


SECTION  n. 

The  same  subject  continued. — On  the  extent  of  the  alleged  powers  apostolical,  as 
claimed  in  behalf  of  their  successors. — Preliminaries. — Substratum  of  the  prelatico- 
episcopal  theory. — Principle  involved,  namely,  Prelacy,  as  essential  to  the  being  of 
the  Church. — Argument  for,  not  the  name,  but  the  acts,  etc. — Bishops  Griswold  and 
Mcllvaine. — Essential  to  the  support  of. — Fallacy  of. — The  name  apostle,  retained 
by  BLshop  Mcllvaine. — Equivocal  and  contradictory  use  of.  by  prelatists. — Bishops 
Mcllvaine  and  H.  U.  Onderdonk  compared. — How  used  in  the  time  of  Ignatius. 

But,  we  have  thus  far  spoken  of  the  priestly  character  of  the 
prelatico-episcopal  system  simply  in  the  abstract.  We  come  now 
to  treat  of 

THE   EXTENT  OF   THOSE   POWERS, 

claimed  in  its  behalf  by  its  respective  advocates,  Eomish,  Tracta- 
rian,  and  High  and  Low  Church. 

Preliminary  to  an  exhibit  of  these  alleged  powers,  we  must  beg 
to  call  to  mind  our  declared  belief,  that  episcopacy,  as  adopted  on 
the  ground  of  expediency  at  an  early  period  of  the  post-apostolic 
age,  containing  within  it  the  germ  of  the  papacy,  finallj^  attained 
to  the  full  maturity  of  that  "infinite  superstition"  as  it  now  exists  ; 
and  also,  that,  under  its  various  Protestant  forms,  it  has  the  same 
tendency  Eomeward  as  that  of  the  magnetic  needle  to  the  body 
which  attracts  it.* 

As  a  stand-point  under  which  to  exhibit  the  nature  and  cha- 
racter of  these  alleged  powers,  we  shall,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
reader,  introduce  in  this  place  what  may  be  termed  the  suhstratum 
of  the  whole  system.     It  is  this : — ■ 

"  Nulla  ecctesia  sine  episcopo''' — "  "Without  a  bishop,  there  is  no 
Church :"  in  other  words,  Episcopacy  is  essential,  to  the  being  of 
THE  Church. 

This  hypothesis  calls  for  remark  regarding  the  two  following 
particulars : — the  mode  or  criterion  of  recognition,  and  the  extent 
of  the  powers  or  functions  of  the  Episcopate. 

I.  First,  then.  The  mode  or  criterion  of  recognition  of  the 
Episcopate.  What  is  it  ?  Prelatists,  discarding  the  names  or  titles, 
tell  us  that  the  successors  of  the  apostles  are  to  be  known  by 
their  acts.  Instance  the  following  :  Bishop  Griswold  says, 
"  The  name  of  apostle  was  not  long  continued." — ''  This  circum- 
stance," he  adds,  "has  led  some  to  suppose,  that  the  apostolic 
office  ceased  with  those  who  first  bore  the  name.  To  decide  this, 
you  have  only  to  consider  what  was  their  ojice.^^-f    And  so.  Bishop 

*  See  p.  180.      t  Bishop  Griswold,  on  Apostolical  Office,  p.  7. 


211 

Mcllvaine.  "  What  was  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  supervision,  or 
episcopate  exercised  bj  the  apostles,  that  name^  of  itself,  does  not 
indicate."*  Others,  it  is  argued,  were  called  apostles,  who  were 
not  such  in  the  same  sense  with  "the  twelve,"  therefore,  the  name 
can  decide  nothing  ! 

But  we  ask.  For  what  purpose  are  names  given  ?  Certainly,  to 
distinguish  between  persons  and  things  that  differ.  Why  then 
divorce  the  name  from  the  thing  designated  by  its  use?  Evi- 
dently, the  name  and  thing — office — must  in  every  case  be  taken 
together,  a  condition  indispensable  in  discriminating,  and  under 
which  alone  we  can  discriminate  between  the  official  acts  of  a  supe- 
rior and  an  inferior  dignitary  bearing  the  same  name. 

Viewed,  however,  in  connection  with  the  prelatical  theory,  the 
above  divorcement  of  the  name  from  the  office  forms  an  essential 
element  in  the  argu^ient  for  the  apostolical  succession.  It  is  predi- 
cated, and  is  necessary  to  the  support  of,  the  distinction  as  alleged 
by  prelatists,  between  the  extraordinary  and  ordinary  functions 
apostolic.  Bishop  Griswold  being  judge,  "the  name  of  apostle 
was  not  long  continued." — Hence,  "  after  their  death.,  their  suc- 
cessors in  office,  in  honor  of  the  first  apostles,  modestly,  by  general 
consent,  assumed  the  name  of  bishop."t  The  only  criterion  there- 
fore left  us,  to  decide  whether  or  not  they  are  successors  to  the 
apostles,  is  to  look,  not  at  their  names,  but  at  their  acts.  The 
apostles  preached,  baptized,  ordained,  governed  the  Church,,  etc. 
Bishops  do  the  same.  Therefore,  bishops  are  successors  to  the 
apostles.     To  bishops  was  transferred  the  apostolic  office. 

"  Modestly,  by  general  consent,  assumed  the  name  of  hishofP 
What  an  act  of  modesty  ! — to  claim  the  office  or  functions^  and 
discard  the  name  which  designated  them.  The  great  Dr.  Barrow 
has  decided  in  reference  to  this  office  apostolic,  that,  "  no  man., 
without  gross  imposture  and  hypocrisy,"  can  "  challenge  it  to  him- 
self" We  may  be  excused  therefore  if  we  add,  that  the  history 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  from  the  second  century,  forms  one  con- 
tinuous line  of  evidence  of  the  deep  hypocrisy  of  this  pretense.  I 
submit  it  to  the  sober  decision  of  the  reader.  Let  it  be  supposed, 
that,  "  in  honor  of  the  first  apostles,"  the  name.,  rather  than  the 
office,  of  the  apostles,  had  been  the  thing  selected  by  their  so-called 
successors.  What  had  been  the  result?  This  may  be  inferred 
from  the  c^tiovs,  powerlessness  of  a  mere  name  for  evil,  compared 
with  \kiQ,  jpotency  of  powers  assumed  by  those  for  whom  they  were 
never  intended.  The  unchecked  ambition  for  "  the  pre-emhstence" 
which  the  choice  of  the  latte/r  has  produced,  has  brought  down 
upon  Christendom  the  dark  cloud  of  Paul's  predicted  apostasy 
from  the  faith,  and  drenched  the  world  in  blood! 

But,  do  prelatists  discard  the  name.,  apostle  ?  Bishop  Mcllvaine 
scouts  the  idea  of  any  "  arrogance"  or  "  presumption"  in  retaining 

♦  Argument  for  the  Apostolical  Succession,  p.  5. 
t  Bishop  Griswold,  on  the  Apostolical  Office,  p.  7. 


212 

it,  any  more  than  in  setting  up  a  claim  to  the  oflfice.     Being  termed 
"  successors  of  the  apostles,"  that  is,  in  name,  and  having  "  suc- 
ceeded to  the  apostolic  office,"  "  whether  it  be  arrogant  or  not," 
says  he,  "  depends  entirely  upon  whether  it  be  true.''''     lie  assumes 
that  it  is  true.      Yea,  more.     As  though  to  refute  the  plea  of 
modest}^  as  above  alleged  by  Bishop  Griswold  in  substituting  the 
name  of  bishop  for  that  of  apostle  as  a  mark  of  "  honor"  to  "the 
twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb;"  this  pious  and  humble  prelate  con- 
tends that,  the  names  of  apostle  and  bishop,   being  used  inter- 
changeably to  denote  the  same  office,  the  successors  of  the  apostles 
are  entitled  as  well  to  the  one  name  as  the  other.     In  answer  to 
the  question,  "  What  was  the  peculiar  and  characteristic  nature  of 
the  apostolic  office  ?"     He  replies  :     "  They  themselves  applied  to 
it  a  name  which  will  aid  the  answer.     Peter,  in  addressing  his 
brother  apostles  concerning  the  filling  of  the  vacancy  caused  by 
the  death  of  Iscariot,  expressly  styles  the  office  which  the  traitor 
had  vacated,  Ms  hlshopriG,  or  his  e'piscopate^  as  the  original*  reads. 
The  same  is  also  called,  in  the  same  transaction,   his  ajjostleshijj. 
Hence,  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  the  names  of  apostle  and 
hishop  are  used  as  pertaining  essentially  to  the  same  office.''''     (And 
he  quotes  Cyprian  and  Hooker  in  his  support).f     Just  precisely 
what   vje  affirm.     Wayne  and  office  go  together.     The  former,  as 
expressive  of  "  the  peculiar  and  characteristic  nature  of"  the  lattei: 
We  must,  however,  rely  upon  the  Bishop's  generosity,  to  reconcile 
the  above  statement,  with  that  already  quoted  from  page  5,  of  his 
argument.     "  What  was  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  supervision,  or 
episcopate" — that  is,  office,  '*  exercised  by  the  apostles,  that  name, 
of  itself,  does  not  indicate." 

One  other  instance,  as  a  further  evidence  of  the  equivocal  and 
contradictory  mode  of  dealing  with  this  subject  by  prelatists.  It 
occurs  in  connection  with  the  names,  "  Angel"  and  "  Star,"  as  de- 
notive  of  official  ministerial  rank.  In  reference  to  these,  one  writ- 
er "  stakes  the  cause  of  prelacy  upon  the  fact,  that  the  angels 
were  called  lishops.''^  While  another  "is  at  no  loss  to  assign  a 
sufficient  reason  why  they  were  not  called  bishops."  Take  the  fol- 
lowing in  illustration. 


*  impD,  PEKUDDATHo,  Psalm  109:8;  ETritTKiTriV,  Episcopen,  Acts  1:20;  signifies 
charge,  employment,  oversight,  or  office,  as  a  ivhole,  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  this 
is  the  only  instance  in  which  this  name  is  applied  by  the  apostles  to  themselves ;  and 
that,  as  a  synonym  of  the  name  apostle,  it  is  never,  in  the  New  Testament,  applied  to 
others.  Paul,  as  we  have  shown,  (p.  159,)  uses  it  interchangeably  with  the  name  TptajJvTtpos, 
elder,  in  Acts  20  :  17,  28 ;  Titus  1  :  5,  7,  an  office  inferior  to  the  bishopric  of  the  apostles 

t  Argument  for  the  Apost.  Succ.  pp.  4,  5. 


213 

Bishop  Mcllvaine  says,  that  to  these  Bishop    H.     U.     Onderdonk     says, 

angels  "  was  appropriated,  during  their  "  These  '  angels'  were  addressed  just  at 

lifetime,  the  title  of  bishops,  as  a  dis-  the  time,  when,  as  we  learn  from  other 

tinctive   title   of  their  special   office."  sources,  the  name  of  apostle  was  about 

This,  he  says,   "  is  not  disputed  ;"  and  being  relinquished  by  those  individuals 

he  quotes  Ignatius  as  evidence.     "Ig-  so  called  in  Scripture,  and  the  name  of 

natius.  Bishop  of  Antioch,  who  person-  bishop  was  in  transitu  from  the  second 

ally   knew  and    conversed    with    St.  order  to  the  first ;  the  former  title  was 

John,  writing  to  the  Church  of  Ephe-  losing,  or  beginning  to  lose,  its  more 

BUS  not  more  than  twelve  years  after  general   application  ;   and   the   latter 

St.  John  had  addressed  the  angel  of  had  not  yet  acquired  its  final  appropria- 

that  church,  in  the  book  of  Revelation,  tion."— "The  dignitaries  in  question," 

expressly  says  that  Onesimus  was  then  i.e.  the  '  angels,'  were  addressed,  when 

its  bishop, — '  who,'  says  he,  '  according  it  was  somewhat  too  late  to  call  them 

to  the  flesh  is  your  bishop.'  "*  apostles,   and   too  soon  to  call   them 

bishops." 

Here,  then,  the  terms  'angel'  and  'star'  being  symbolic, f  we 
have  seven  alleged  successors  of  the  apostles,  for  a  period,  at  least, 
without  a  name. 

Eespecting  the  above,  we  shall  only  remark,  first,  that  Ignatius 
was  right  in  one  thing.  He  says  of  these  bishops,  that  they  were 
such  '■'■  according  to  the  flesh;"  which,  admitting  that  the  docu 
ment  is  authentic,  furnishes  proof  that  they  were  not  such  accord- 
ing to  the  Spirit  :  that  they  were  of  man  and  ly  man :  7iot  bv 
Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father.  Second,  at  the  time  of  which 
both  these  bishops  speak,  that  of  Ignatius,  it  "is  confessed  on  all 
hands,"  that  the  name,  bishop,  was  the  title,  not  of  a  prelate,  but 
of  a  parochial  pastor  :  it  was  used  interchangeably  with  that  of 
elder,  or  presbyter,  to  denote  the  same  office.  If,  then,^  according 
to  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  these  angels  were  then  called  "  bishops,"  as 
"  the  distinctive  title  of  their  special  office,"  it  follows,  that  they 
"  were  not  prelates,  but  parochial  pastors."  We  leave  it  with 
Bishop  Mcllvaine  to  evade  "  this  logic"  as  best  he  can. 

*  Argument  for  the  Apost.  Succ,  pp.  10,  11. 
t  See  p.  130. 


214 


SECTION    III. 

The  subject  continued. — Extent  of  the  alleged  prelatical  functions. — Their  incongruous 
and  discordant  views  of. — The  subject  applied — 1st :  To  the  nature,  character,  and 
powers  of  "the  twelve" — Alleged  Headship  of  Christ  transferred  to  them — Bishops 
Griswold  and  McCoskrey — Absurdity  of — 2d  :  Its  transfer  by  the  Apostles  to  others 
— Bishops  Griswold  and  McCoskrey — Whole  and  entire. — Contradicted  by  the  dis- 
tinction made  by  them  between  the  extraordinary  and  ordinary  functions  apostolic. 
— Continuance  of  miraculous  powers  in  the  line  of  prelatical  bishops,  positively 
affirmed  by  Maurice. — Made  to  depend,  however,  on  their  faithfulness. — By  others, 
denied. — Quotations  from  "  Tracts  for  the  Times,"  Bishop  Mcllvaine. — Rev.  Mr. 
Melville. — Taken  together,  the  system  is  complete. 

But  let  us  see  whether  less  of  incongruity  attaches  to  the  views 
of  these  writers,  in  regard  to  what  they  allege, 

II. — Of  the  extent  of  the  powers  or  functions  of  the  apostolate, 
as  alleged  to  have  been  derived,  first,  from  Christ  personally  to  the 
apostles ;  and  second,  from  the  apostles  to  their  successors. 

"We  will  here  venture  the  afiirmation,  that  the  above  exhibit  of 
the  discrepancies  of  prelatical  writers  regarding  their  use  of  the 
name,  apostle,  etc.,  will  sink  into  insignificance  beside  the  univer- 
sally discordant  and  incongruous  views  which  they  present  on  the 
subject  of  their  alleged  transferred  office. 

1.  First.     Of  the  nature^  character,  and  extent  of  the  powers  or 

functions  apostolic,  as  relating  to  "the  twelve." 

Bishop  Griswold.  "  Christ,  immediately  before  he  left  the  earth, 
advanced  his  apostles  to  that  rank  which  he  was  leaving."  And 
again :  "  He  (Christ)  appoints  them  (the  apostles)  to  the  office 
which  he  was  leaving."* 

Bishop  McCoskrey.  "  Everything  that  could  be  possessed  by  a 
mere  human  being,  was  given  to  them  (the  apostles)  by  the  Savior. 
He  was,  as  the  apostle  declares,  the  head  of  the  body,  consequently 
this  headship  was  transferred,"  etc.f 

The  ^'■rank^''  "  oy^ce,"  and  " /«eacfe/wy  of  Christ,  transferred  to 
his  apostles ! 

We  here  deferentially  ask  :  Will  prelatists  venture  to  institute 
a  distinction  in  reference  to  the  functions  which  merge  in  the 
"  rank,"  "  office,"  and  "  headship"  of  Christ,  similar  to  that  urged 
in  reference  to  his  apostles?  We  think  not.  It  would  hence 
follow,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  that  the  apostles  were  placed  on  a 
platform  of  equality  with  Christ  Himself.  The  streams  are  equal 
with  the  fountain  whence  they  emanate.  As  the  office  of  Christ  is 
only  to  be  known  by  His  acts ;  and  as,  in  view  of  His  inherent 

*  Bishop  Griswold  on  the  Apostolic  Office,  p.  .5» 

t  Bishop  McCoskrey's  Sermon  on  Apostolic  Bishops,  p.  7. 


215 

possession  ot  the  Spirit  without  measure,  He  "spake  as  never  man 
spake,'"  healed  the  sick,  cast  out  devils,  raised  the  dead,  etc.,  so, 
of  course,  of  X}ie  Junctions^  inherent  in  the  "rank,"  "office,"  and 
"  headship"  delegated  by  Him  to  his  apostles.  Otherwise,  Christ 
is  divided!  But,  so  far  from  this,  the  bishop,  though  he  explains 
Christ's  headship  to  "  mean  that  which  belonged  to  him  in  his 
human  nature,  as  Head  and  Governor  of  the  Church,"*  yet  reiterates 
some  half  dozen  times,  that  Christ,  "  as  he  was  about  returning  to 
heaven,"  transferred  his  office  as  high  priest,  to  his  apostles,  not 
only,  but  with  it,  "  the  power  which  he  received  from  the  Father;'" 
that,  "  in  this  transaction,  they  were  raised  up  to  THE  VERY 
SAME  OFFICE  which  Christ  himself  held."  "  In  short,  that 
they  were  empowered  to  "do  everything  which  Christ  would  have 
done,  had  he  continued  on  the  earth  !"f 

We  here  ask,  by  the  way  :  Had  Christ  "  continued  on  earth," 
would  he  have  been  a  ^ne5^  .^  Let  Paul  answer:  "For  if  Christ 
were  on  earth,  he  should  not  be  a  priest." 

But  Christ  is  a  priest,  yea,  even  that  "high  priest  after  the  order 
of  Melchisedek,"  who  hath  an  unchangeable  priesthood." 

But  if  unchangeable,  it  must  now  be  in  exercise.  And,  as  we 
know  that  it  is  not  continued  by  Christ  personally  on  the  earth,  it 
must  be  continued  "m  the  Jieavens^  "This  man,  after  he  had 
offered  one  sacrifice  for  sins,"  as  a  "  high  priest  forever,  after  the 
order  of  Melchisedek,"  "forever  sat  down  at  the  right  hand  of 
God." 

It  happens,  after  all,  that  Christ  IS  divided.  "His  "rank," 
"  office,"  "  headship" — his  high  priesthood,  together  with  all  "  the 
power  which  he  received  from  the  Father,"  transferred  to  his  apos- 
tles, who  thereby  became  his  "representatives,"  or  "permanent 
rulers  and  heads  on  earth. ":{; 

The  Holy  Ghost  has  decided  otherwise.  The  impossibility  of 
such  a  transfer,  in  whole  or  in  part,  is  manifest  from  the  very  na- 
ture of  the  great  mediatorial  work.  For,  while,  "for  the  suffering 
of  death"  in  expiating  human  guilt,  "it  behooved  Christ  to  be 
made  like  unto  the  brethren  ;"  the  efficacy  of  that  atonement,  etc., 
is  available  in  our  behalf  only  in  virtue  of  the  union  of  the 
divine  with  the  humcni  nature.  That  the  "  all  power  in  heaven  and 
in  earth"  given  by  the  Father  to  Christ,  therefore,  is  absolutely  incom- 
municable^ will  appear  from  the  fact  that  the  transfer  by  Christ  to 
his  apostles  of  his  human  nature  only,  while,  in  Himself,  the  union 
of  the  divine  with  the  human  nature  was  indispensable  to  the  effi- 
cacy of  His  work  as  mediator,  had  been  but  to  render  inefficacious 
and  void  his  official  and  priestly  functions,  as  put  forth  by  man. 
And  yet, 

(1)  John  3  :  34.     (2)  Matt.  28  :  18. 

*  Sermon,  etc.,  p.  10.  f  Sermon,  etc.,  pp.  7,  8,  10,  12,  13,  etc. 

t  Sermon,  etc.,  pp.  8-12. 


216 

2.  These  powers  or  functions,  as  alleged  to  have  been  received 
bj  the  apostles  from  Christ,  are  declared  to  be  transferable.     Thus, 

Bishop  Griswold.  "  Christ  promised  to  be  with  them  (his  apos- 
tles) even  to  the  end  of  the  world,  evidently  meaning  them  and 
their  successors  in  the  same  qi/ice.^^* 

Bishop  McCoskrey.  "  This  point  then  is  clearly  settled:  that 
the  apostles  held  the  only  ministry  which  was  of  Christ.  Not 
only  the  power  to  rule  and  govern  the  Church,  but  of  course  it 
must  also  follow,  to  continue  the  same  office.  If  not,  there  has 
never  been  any  authorized  ministry  in  the  Church,  and  all  who 
profess  to  be  commissioned  as  ambassadors  of  Christ,  are  gross 

IMPOSTORS."t 

We  would  respectfully  remind  Bishop  McCoskrey,  that  he  is 
sadly  at  issue  with  the  learned  Barrow  on  this  point.  :^ 

Well.  These  powers  or  functions  :  Were  they  to  be  transferred 
in  whole  or  in  pay-t  ?  The  apostles,  undeniabl}',  besides  being  in- 
spired men,  were  endowed  with  miraculous  powers.  Allowing, 
then  (in  the  sense  of  a  logical  deduction  of),  the  statements  made 
respecting  them  by  the  above  writers,  the  sum  of  the  matter  is 
this: 

The  apostles  were  advanced  by  Christ  himself  to  the  same  rank, 
office,  or  headship  in  the  Church  which  he  was  leaving,  with  au- 
thority to  transfer  "  the  same  power'''  to  their  successors. 

Bnt,  this  rank,  office,  or  headship  apostolic,  included  the  func- 
tions both  of  inspiration  and  of  miraculous  powers. 

Therefore,  the  successors  of  the  apostles,  receiving  from  them 
"the  same  powers"  which  ih.ej  received  from  Christ,  are  endowed 
with  mspyiration  and  miraculous  functions  ! 

And  thus,  as  the  reader  casts  his  eye  along  the  alleged  unbroken 
line  of  succession  from  Peter,  or  Paul,  or  both,  in  addition  to  those 
of  the  Papal  line,  prominent  among  the  continuous  links,  he  finds 
Apostle  alias  Bishop  H.  U.  Onderdonk,  of  Pennsjdvania ;  Ap>ostle 
alias  Bishop  B.  T.  Onderdonk,  of  New  York  ;  Ap>ostle  alias  Bishop 
S.  A.  McCoskrey  of  Michigan  ;  AjMsile  alias  Bishop  C.  P.  Mcllvaine, 
of  Ohio ;  Apostle  alias  the  would-be  My  Lord  Bishop  C  W.  Doane, 
of  New  Jersey,  etc.,  etc.,  some  of  whom,  at  least,  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, have  been  marvelously  inspired,  and  have  performed  many 
marvelous  wonders ;  but,  with  what  evidence  that  they  were  of  the 
same  nature  and  character  with  those  of  the  onginal  functions  apos- 
tolic, we  leave  others  to  decide. 

At  this  point,  however,  we  are  admonished  not  to  bear  "  false 
witness  against  our  neighbor."  Protestant  prelatists  remind  us'of 
the  distinction  on  which  they  insist,  between  the  extraordinary 
powers  and  the  ordinary  functions  of  "  the  twelve  ;"  and,  that  the 
"rank,"  office  or  "  headship"  transferred  by  them  to  their  successors 

♦  Bishop  Griswold  on  Apostolic  Office.,  p.  6. 

t  Bishop  McCoskrey's  Sermon  on  Apostolic  Bishops,  p.  12.  ^ 

t  See  p.  109. 


217 

relate  exclusively  to  the  ordinary  powers  apostolic.  We  refer 
the  reader  to  our  quotations  on  this  subject  (page  204)  from  the 
writings  of  Bishops  Taylor,  Griswold,  and  Mcllvaine.  And,  in 
addition  to  what  we  have  there  offered,  to  show  that  the  above  is 
a  distinction  between  things  which  do  not  differ, — miraculous 
powers,  under  the  first  two  commissions,  as  proved  from  Mark  3  : 
14,  15 ;  6  :  7-13  ;  and  Luke  9  :  1-6,  forming  the  components  of 
the  same  official  functions ;  also,  the  error  of  this  class  of  writers 
in  overlooking  a  real  distinction, — that,  we  mean,  between  the 
nature  and  extent  of  the  original  powers  apostolic  and  those  which 
were  derived  from  them ;  and,  finally,  the  fact  that  the  name 
apostle  (Bishop  Mcllvaine  being  judge)  is  given  to  define  "the 
peculiar  and  characteristic  nature  of  the  apostolic  ofl&ce,"*  and 
that,  hence,  both  must  go  together ;  we  now  add,  that,  while  they 
retain  in  their  liturgy  the  present  stereotyped  form  for  the  ordina- 
tion of  priests  and  the  consecration  of  bishops, — that  of  claiming 
the  exercise  of  the  highest  act  of  miraculous  power  apostolic,  viz., 
the  conferrmg  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  imposition  of  hands :  we  can- 
.not  but  view  the  argument  as  founded  on  this  plea  as  utterly 
incongruous,  futile,  and  vain.  To  the  reply  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine 
to  the  question  :  "  Were  these  miraculous  gifts  so  connected  with  the 
apostolic  oflftce  as  to  constitute  in  any  sense  its  distinguishing 
characteristics  ?"  viz.,  that  "  they  are  not  mentioned  in  the  com- 
mission" (referring  to  Matthew  28  :  18,  19,  20) :  it  is  sufficient  to 
say,  that  every  commission  comprehends  three  parts :  1st,  Qualifi- 
cations for  acting;  2d,  Authority  to  act;  and  3d,  Directions  how 
to  act.  The  first,  however,  is  the  measure  of  their  official  func- 
tions. Their  office  is  known  by  their  names  and  by  their 
acts.  Christ,  in  the  exercise  of  his  office,  not  ovly  taught,  preached, 
etc.,  but  wrought  miracles.  His  apostles  did  the  same  It  were 
as  consistent,  therefore,  to  apply  the  above  distinction  to  Christ  as 
to  his  apostles.  Query.  Will  these  writers  condescend  to  recon- 
cile this  divorcement  of  miraculous  powers  from  the  function  of 
preaching,  etc.,  with  the  following  passage  regarding  the  official 
powers  of  our  blessed  Lord,  as  the  elect  "  high  priest  of  our  pro- 
fession" ?  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he  hath 
anointed  me  \o preach  the  Gospel  to  the  poor ;  he  hath  sent  me  to 
Ileal  the  broken-hearted ;  to  preach  deliverance   to  the  captives, 

AXD  RECOVERING  OF  SIGHT  TO  THE  BLIND"  ?' 

Eelief  fi-om  the  dilemma  involved  in  this  indefensible  hj^pothesis, 
however,  is  at  hand.  It  affords,  we  affirm,  the  only  possible  es- 
cape therefrom.  That  redoubtable  champion  of  Prelac}^,  Maurice, 
"  whose  praise  is  in  all  the  Churches"  Episcopal,  speaking  of  these 
very  powers  apostolical  as  derived  from  "  the  twelve,"  says,  "  that, 
according  to  the  doctrine  which  has  always  prevailed  in  the 
Church,  the  Episcopate  does  contain  in  it  the  administration  of  the 

(1)  Luke  4  :  18. 
*  See  Sermon,  Argument  for  the  Apostolic  Succession,  p.  4. 


218 

sacraments,  the  delivery  of  absolution,  the  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
the  ministering  to  the  sick  and  poor, — all  the  functions,  in  short, 
which  were  at  any  time  committed  by  our  Lord  to  his  immediate 
disciples ;  and,  tliat  the  BISHOPS  HAVE,  AND  OUGHT  TO 
BELIEVE  THEY  HAVE,  all  needful  powers  to  perform 

THESE  functions  "  ! 

The  above,  the  learned  author  designs  as  a  reproof  to  the  de- 
luded Irvingites,  as  the  expectants  of  a  restoration,  to  the  Church, 
of  the  original  office  apostolic  with  miraculous  powers,  as  though, 
says  he,  "  there  be  any  reason  to  expect  that  an  order  will  be  in- 
troduced by  SIGNS  and  wonders,  which  seems  to  be  ALREADY 
IN  BEING"!!* 

To  this,  however,  it  may  be  objected,  that  the  learned  Maurice 
intimates  that  though  "Christ  is  still  present  in  the  Church,"  the 
continuance  of  the  original  functions  is  made  contingent  on  the 
faithfulness  of  their  successors.  Christ,  he  says,  "would  still 
communicate  actual  powers  to  his  ministers,  if  their  faithlessness 
did  not  interfere''''  !\  Have,  then,  the  "actual  powers"  apostolic 
been  forfeited  by  the  "  faithlessness"  of  their  successors  ?  Where, 
then,  pray,  are  we  to  look  for  the  office  ?  An  office  without  func-* 
tions !  The  above  admission  would  work  inevitable  ruin  to  the 
stand-23oint — the  substratum  of  the  Prelatical  theory, — "  Nxdla  ec- 
clesia  sine  episco'poi!''  We  should  then  have  "  a  church  without  a 
bishop  "  ! 

But,  no.  Prelatists  have  no  idea  that  the  perpetuity  of  apos- 
tolical successors  and  the  consequent  existence  of  "  the  Church," 
should  be  thus  suspended  upon  the  precarious  basis  of  an  "  IF," 
predicated  of  the  personal  unfaithfulness,  etc.  of  those  who  form 
the  connecting  links.  That  the  "  actual  powers"  apostolic, — 
though  "  transmitted  through  corrupt  channels," — for  example, 
"  traitors,"  like  Iscariot,  or  the  "  deficient  and  untaught,"  even 
though  they  teach  "  falsehood"  and  administer  "sustenance  little 
better  thau  poison," — cannot  be  vitiated  or  destroyed,  we  refer 
the  reader  to  the  following  prelatical  gems  : — 

"  Nor,  even  though  we  admit  that  many  of  those  who  formed 
the  connecting  links  of  this  holy  chain  were  themselves  unworthy 
of  the  high  charge  reposed  in  them,  can  this  furnish  us  with  any 
solid  ground  for  doubting  or  denying  their  power  to  exercise  that 
legitimate  authority  with  which  they  Avere  duly  invested,  of  trayis- 
mitting  the  sacred  gift  to  worthier  followers." — "  The  very  question 
of  worth,  indeed,  with  relation  to  such  matters,  is  absurd.  Who 
is  worthy  ?  Who  is  a  fit  and  meet  dispenser  of  the  gifts  of 
the  Holy  Ghost?" — "And,  be  it  remembered,  that  the  apostolic 
powers,  if  not  transmitted  through  these,  in  some  [manj-  ?]  in- 
stances corrupt  channels,  had  not  been  transmitted  to  our  times  at 
ally — "  The  wn/worthiness  of  man,  then,  cannot  prevent  the  good- 

*  Maurice's  Kingdom  of  Christ,  pp.  379-382.  f  Ibid.  p.  381. 


219 

ness  of  God  from  flowing  in  those  channels  in  which  he  has  des- 
tined it  to  flow."  * 

Bishop  Mcllvaine,  speaking  of  "  the  prejudice"  "  as  to  personal 
character  and  fitness"  "of  the  modern  successors  with  the  first  in 
the  chain,"  "  occupying,  individually,  just  that  relation  to  the  pre- 
sent Church  which  the  apostles,  by  virtue  of  the  essential  features 
of  their  office,  sustained  individually  to  the  Church  of  their  day," 
by  way  of  exposing  its  unreasonableness,  says :  "Be  it  remem- 
bered that  Judas  Iscariot  was  numbered  with  the  apostles  by  the 
Savior  himself,  and  Judas  was  a  traitor."  f 

The  distinguished  Mr.  Melville,  of  London,  expressly  affirms : 
"  If,  whensoever  the  minister  himself  is  deficient  and  untaught,  so 
that  his  sermons,  exhibit  a  wrong  system  of  doctrine,  you  will  not 
allow  that  Christ's  Church  may  be  profited  by  the  ordinance  of 
preaching  ;  you  clearly  argue  that  Christ  has  given  up  his  office, 
and  that  he  can  no  longer  be  styled  the  '  minister  of  the  tabernacle.' 
When  every  thing  seems  against  the  true  followers  of  Christ,  so 
that,  on  a  carnal  calculation,  you  would  suppose  the  services  of  the 
Church  stripped  of  all  efficacy,  then,  by  acting  faith  on  the  Head 
of  the  ministry,  they  are  instructed  and  nourished,  though  in  the 
main,  the  given  lesson  he  falsehood,  and  the  proffered  sustenance  he 
little  better  than  poison  "  ! 

Thus,  then,  while  Maurice  steps  forward  to  the  relief  of  his 
brethren  from  the  sequence  of  their  distinguishing  between  things 
which  do  not  differ ;  they  again  return  the  compliment,  by  point- 
ing out  to  hira  how  quite  unnecessary  it  is  that  he  should  shrink 
from  his  former  declaration,  that  "  according  to  the  doctrine  that 
has  always  prevailed  in  the  Church,  the  Episcopate  "has  been  sig- 
nalized "by  signs  and  wonders  already  in  heing." 

This,  we  again  repeat,  is  the  only  consistent  and  legitimate  de- 
duction flowing  from  the  prelatical  hypothesis  of  a  ministry  de- 
rived from  the  apostles,  and  endowed  with  those  "  same  powers" 
in  unbroken  continuity  to  the  present  day,  which  they  affirm  to 
have  received  from  Christ.  Bishop  Seabury,  therefore,  was  right 
in  ojpposing  the  introduction  as  a  substitute  for  the  original,  of  a 
form  for  the  ordination  of  priests  and  the  consecration  of  bishops, 
of  an  equivocal  character.  Equivocal  ?  0,  no,  sa3'S  Bishop 
Mcllvaine.  The  substitute,  "  Take  thou  authority  to  execute  the 
office  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of  God  now  committed  to  thee  by 
the  imposition  of  our  hands,"  etc.,  "  expresses  the  interpretation  of 
the  Church  as  to  the  words  of  the  other :  '  Receive  the  Holy 
Ghost  for  the  office,"  etc.:}:  Then  they  are  of  equivalent  import. 
Else,  where  the  consistency  of  allowing  the  use  of  either  indif- 
ferently, at  the  discretion  of  the  ordaining  bishop  ? 

*  Tracts  for  the  Times,  No  V.,  pp.  9,  10,  11,  12. 

t  Sermon,  Argume  nt  for  the  Apostolical  Succession,  p.  8. 

X  See  Sermon,  Protestant  Churchman  of  March  16,  1850. 


220 


SECTION  IV. 

Aggregate  powers  of  the  prelatico-episcopal  priesthood,  as  advocated  by,  1st,  The  Ro- 
manists.—  (1.)  Of  the  priesthood  generally. —  (2.)  Of  the  popedom  in  particular. — 
(a.)  Immaculate. — (b.)  Infallible. — (c.)  Their  spiritual  powers. — (d.)  Their  tem- 
poral powers. —  (e.)  Their  supremacy,  absolute  and  universal. —  (3.)  The  Romish, 
"  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  chyrches." — Means  employed  for  her  extension 
and  support. — 2d.  Protestant  prelatists,  Anglican  and  American. —  (1.)  Of  the 
ministry  as  a  Christian  priesthood.—  (2.)  Of  their  official  powers. — Bishops  Gris- 
wold  and  McCoskrey.  See  p.  191. —  (a.)  Immaculate. —  (6.)  Infallible. —  (c.) 
Their  spiritual  powers. — Absolution. — Mediation. — Dr.  Dodwell. — Bishops  Gris- 
wold  and  Mcllvaine. — Inference. 

Come  we  now, 

III.  To  exhibit  a  condensed  view  of  the  aggregate  powers  of  the 
prelatico-episcopal  priesthood,  as  alleged  to  have  been  derived  from 
Christ  through  the  apostles,  as  set  forth, 

1.  In  the  EoMiSH  theory  of  that  system. 

The  extent  of  the  "  all  ministerial  power"  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
may  be  collected  from  her  almost  numberless  canons,  bulls,  decre- 
tals, and  rescripts,  issued  from  time  to  time  by  her  popes  and  coun- 
cils, one  and  all  of  which,  claiming  to  be  of  equal  authority  with 
holy  Scripture,  are  held  to  be  infallible.  The  following  extracts 
will  illustrate  her  claims  : 

(1.)  In  behalf  of  her  ministry  as  a  Christian  priesthood.  This 
ministry  she  affirms  to  be,  not  only  the  antitype,  but  that  it  is  actu- 
ally identical  with,  the  jDriesthood  of  the  old  world,  as  existing  even 
anterior  to  that  instituted  by  Moses.  The  decretals  authoritatively 
announce,  that  "  the  institution  of  the  papacy  began  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, and  was  consummated  and  finished  in  the  New."* — "  The 
greatness  of  the  Pope's  priesthood  began  in  Melchisedek,  was  so- 
lemnized in  Aaron,  was  continued  in  Aaron's  sons,  was  made  per- 
fect in  Christ,  was  represented  in  Peter,  was  exalted  in  the  ponti- 
fical universal  jurisdiction,  and  was  manifested  in  Sylvester  and 
his  successors."!  "  The  order  of  the  New  Testament  priesthood 
first  began  in  Peter ^X 

(2.)  In  behalf  of  the  stupendous  powers  alleged  to  inhere  in  this 
pontifical  priesthood.  In  a  general  way,  they  are  thus  expressed : 
"As  the  authority  given  to  Peter  belongs  to  his  successors,  who 
therefore,  in  all  the  world,  ought  not  to  be  subject  to  the  pope's 
decrees,  which  have  such  power  in  heaven,  in  hell,  and  upon 
earth,  with  the  quick  (or  the  living),  and  also  the  dead."§  But, 
we  must  descend  to  particulars.     They  are  declared  to  be, 

*  Distinct.  12,  C.  Decretis.  t  Antoninus,  Summa  Majoris,  Pars  3. 

\  Distinct.  21,  C.     In  novo. 

§  Distinct.  21,  C.  Decretis.— ifo.     Dist.  19,  C.  Ita  Dominus.     Nklvdas.    Dist.  22,  C. 
In  tantum. 


221 

(a.)  Immaculate.  "The  popedom  Latli  neitlier  spot,  nor  wrinkle, 
nor  any  such  thing,"* 

(5.)  infallible.  "  The  pope,  who  is  judge  of  all,  can  be  judged 
of  none;  neither  emperor,  nor  priests,  nor  kings,  nor  people.  Who 
hath  power  to  judge  his  jadger  The  pope  has  power  over  coun- 
cils, but  councils  have  no  power  over  the  pope,  on  account  of  his 
PRE-EMiisrENCE."f  "  God  hath  reserved  the  pope  from  the  judg- 
ment of  man  to  his  own  judgment/':}:  "  Tlie  pope  is  free  from  all 
laws,  so  that  he  cannot  incur  any  sentence  of  irregularity,  suspen- 
sion, or  excommunication,  or  penalty,  for  any  crime."  The  pope 
is  to  be  presumed  to  be  always  good  and  hol}^  and  though  he  be 
not  holy,  and  be  destitute  of  merit,  yet  the  merits  of  Peter,  his  pre- 
decessor, are  sufficient  for  him,  who  hath  bequeathed  a  perpetual 
inheritance  of  merits  and  dowry  of  innocence  to  his  posterity,  so 
that,  although  the  pope  be  guilty  of  homicide,  adulter}-,  and  all 
other  sins,  he  may  be  excused,  by  the  murders  of  Samson,  the 
thefts  of  the  Hebrews,  and  the  adultery  of  Jacob.  §  Hence,  "  the 
Court  of  Eome  never  was  found  to  slide  or  decline  from  the  faith 
of  apostolical  tradition,  or  to  be  entangled  with  any  novel  heresy  '"| 
"As  the  primacy  of  Rome  hath  not  been  preserved  by  any  general 
council,  but  was  obtained  by  the  voice  of  the  Gospel  and  the  mouth 
of  the  Savior, "*j[  therefore  he  is  declared  to  be  "  infallible  without 
defect^'"'  "upon  every  point  of  revelation,"  and  that  he  "pro- 
nounces sentence  clearly,  distinctly,  and  with  certainty  infallible  ;" 
and  that  to  the  extent  that  it  involves  the  '■'•  plenary  poioer^  First, 
to  determine  upon  the  canonical  authority  of  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
and  demand  the  belief  or  rejection  of  them  in  conformity  with  the 
papal  decision.  Second,  to  authorize  the  knowledge  of  the  sacred 
volume  for  us.  Third,  to  expound  the  sense  of  the  Holy  Oracles, 
and  with  all  that  certitude,  that  every  Christian  without  scruple 
can  believe  it.  Fourth,  to  decide  peremptorily  upon  the  additional 
doctrines  and  duties  which  are  indispensable  to  salvation,  and  to 
supply,  as  emergencies  require,  from  tradition  and  expediencv,  the 
deficiencies  which  they  avow  are  obvious  in  the  Scriptures  of  truth. 
And  Fifth,  to  decide  all  controversies  without  reference  to  Scripture, 
conscience,  or  any  other  tribunal."** 

(c.)  Their  spiritual  powers.  "The  pope  is,  by  divine  right,"  in 
matters  spiritual,  declared  to  be  "  the  sovereign  head,  supreme 
judge,  and  lawgiver  in  all  things  relating  to  religion,  whether  as  to 
faith,  manners,  or  discipline."  "  The  pope  is  all  in  all,  and  above 
all,  so  that  God  and  the  pope,  the  vicar  of  God,  are  but  one  con- 

*  Pelagius.    Distinct.  21. 

t  Innocent.     Caus.  6,  Qu.  3,  C.  Nemo.     Gelasius.     Caus.  9,  Qu.  3.  C.  Cuiicta. 

t   Symmachus.     Caus.  9,  Qu.  3,  C.  Aliorum. 

§  Distinct.  40,  C.  Si  papa. — Thomas.  Qu.  3,  C.  Per  principalem.  Hugo,  Dist.  40, 
C.  Non  nos  ;  Glossa. — Causa  12,  Qu.  3,  C.  Absis. 

II  Pope  Lucius.    Dist.  24,  Qu.  1,  C.  Enim  vero. 

i  Pelagius.     Dist.  21,  C.  Quamvis. 

**  Innocent.  Elect.  C.  Venerabilem.  Zachary.  Caus.  15,  Qu.  6.  C.  Alius.  Gregory 
VU.    Clement.  C.  Pastoralis,  etc.     (See  Fox's  Acts  and  3Ionuments.) 


222 

sistorj,  for  he  is  able  to  do  almost  that  God  can  do,  cla/ofi  non 
errante.,  Avithout  error."*  "  God,  not  man,  separateth  that  which 
the  pope  dissolves ;  therefore,  what  can  you  make  of  the  pope  but 
that  inc  IS  God  ? — Wherefore  the  pope  has  power  to  change  times, 
to  abrogate  laws,  and  to  dispense  with  all  things,  even  the  preceptii 
of  Christ,"f  in  regard  to  war,  marriage,  divorce,  revenge,  swearing, 
usury,  homicide,  perjujy,  and  uncleanness" !:{:  "Thus  the  pope- 
hath  all  power  in  earth,  purgatory,  hell,  and  heaven,  to  bind,  loose, 
command,  permit,  elect,  confirm,  depose,  dispense,  do  and  undo. 
Therefore,  it  is  concluded,  commanded,  declared,  and  pronounced, 
to  stand  ii^on  necessity  of  salvation,  for  every  human  creature  to 
be  subject  to  the  pontiff  of  Rome."§ 

(d)  Their  temporal  powers.  "  The  power  of  the  keys  is  given  to 
the  pope  immediately  from  Christ.  By  the  jurisdiction  of  which 
keys  of  binding  and  loosing,  and  dominion,  the  fullness  of  papal 
power  is  so  great,  that  even  emperors  and  all  others  are  subjects 
to  the  pope,  and  ought  to  submit  their  acts  to  him."  ||  "  There  are 
three  kinds  of  power  on  earth :  Immediate ;  which  is  that  of 
the  pope  from  God :  Derived ;  to  other  prelates  from  the  pope  : 
Ministering ;  belonging  to  emperors  and  princes  to  minister  for 
the  pope."^  Hence,  in  virtue  of  this  alleged  divine  right,  one 
pope  translated  the  empire  froni  the  Greeks  to  the  Romans ; 
another  put  down  Childeric  and  set  up  Pepin  ;  another  appointed 
the  king  of  Sicily ;  another  stirred  Rudolph  against  Henry  IV. : 
another  made  Henry  rebel  against  his  father  the  emperor ;  another 
forced  Henry  II.  of  England  to  go  barefoot  to  the  tomb  of  Becket ; 
another  caused  John  to  kneel  and  offer  his  crown  to  Pandulph  the 
Legate ;  another  prostrated  Hugo  of  Italy,  and  absolved  his  sub- 
jects from  their  allegiance ;  another  excommunicated  Henry  V., 
and  obtained  all  his  rights ;  another  placed  England  under  inter- 
dict ;  and  another  put  his  foot  upon  the  neck  of  the  Emperor 
Frederick,  and  reproved  him  for  holding  the  wrong  stirrup  of  the 
horse  he  was  mounting.**  In  addition  to  the  above,  their  powers 
are  declared  to  be, 

(e.)   Universal.     "  All  the  earth  is  the  pope's  diocese  ;  and  he  has 

*  Hostiensis,  C.  Quanto  de  translat.  preb. — Baptist  Summa  Casuum. 

t  Decret.  de  translat.  Episc.  C.  Quanto. 

j  Nicholas.  Caiis.  15,  Qu.  6,  C.  Auctorit.  Martin.  Dist.  14,  C.  Lector.  Gre/^ory. 
Dist.  32,  Qu.  7,  C.  Quod  proposuisti.  Innocent  IV.  Sixt.  Dec.  De  Sentent.  Ex-Com. 
C.  Dilecto.  Alexander  HI.  De  decimis.  C.  Exparte.  De  Elect.,  et  Elect.  Protestate. 
C.  Significasti ;  Glossa.  Bap.  de  Sumcas.  Innocent  IF.  De  Elect.  C.  Veni-rabilem. 
Extravag.  de  Jurejurando,  C.  Venientis.  Martin  V.  Extravag.  C.  Regimini  TJnivers. 
Eccles.     Urban  II     Cans.  23,  Qu.  3,  Excom. 

f)  Sixt.  Decret.  C.  Felicis.  Glossa.  Boniface  VIII.  Extravag.  De  Majorit.  Et  Obed 
C.  Unam  Sanctum. 

II  Dist.  19.  C.  Si  Romanorum.  Gab.  Biel.  Lib.  4.— Dist.  19.— Pet.  de  Palude  — 
Dist.  19.  Innperator.        * 

^  Sum.  Mag.  Pars  3.     Antonini.     Innocent  III.     Sac.  Unci.  C.  Qui  Venisset. 

**  Innocent.  Elect.  C.  Venerabilem.  Zachary.  Caus.  1.5,  Qu.  6,  C.  Alius.  Gre- 
gory VII.  Clement.  C.  Pastoralis.  Platina.  Nauclerus. — Polydore  Virgil.  Urban. 
Caus.  15,  Qu.  6,  C.  Juratos.  Alexander  III  Spons.  et  mat.  C.  Non  Est.  Adrian. 
Vit  Rom.  Pont.  Bulla  Adriani. — (See  Fox's  Acts  and  Men.) 


223 

the  authority  of  the  King  of  all  kings  over  their  subjects."*  And 
this  upon  the  following  ground  :  Melchisedek  was  king  as  well  as 
priest.  The  priesthood  of  Aaron  was  an  ecclesiastico-polilical  sys- 
tem. Christ  was  King  as  well  as  Priest.  Peter  wielded  the  sword 
as  well  as  the  spirit,  and  dealed  out  death  and  damnation  to  the 
covetous  Ananias  and  Sapphira.  Therefore,  "  the  pope  is  head  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  as  a  king  over  his  judges;  for  he  is  Peter's 
vicar  and  successor ;  vicar  of  Christ ;  rector  and  director  of  the 
universal  Church ;  chief  magistrate  of  the  whole  world;  head  and 
chief  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  universal  pope  and  diocesan;  most 
mighty  priest — neither  God  nor  man,  hut  between  both,  the  admira- 
tion of  the  universe,  having  both  swords  of  temporal  and  spiritual 
jurisdiction, "  etc.f 

And  so,  "  THE  PAPACY"  is  declared  to  be  "  the  mother  and. 
mistress  of  all  other  Churches  of  Christ ;  from  whose  rules  no  per- 
sons should  deviate ;  but  like  as  the  Son  of  God  came  to  do  the 
will  of  his  Father,  so  must  you  do  the  will  of  your  mother  the 
Church,  the  head  whereof  is  Rome.":}:  "Be  it  known  to  all  men, 
that  Rome  is  the  prince  and  head  of  all  nations ;  the  mother  of 
faith  ;  the  cardinal  foundation  whereupon  all  Churches  do  depend, 
as  the  door  upon  the  hinges  ;  the  first  of  all  seats,  without  spot  or 
blemish ;  the  lady,  the  mistress,  and  instructor  of  all  Churches ; 
and  a  glass  and  spectacle  to  all  men,  to  be  followed  in  every  thing 
which  the  Roman  pontiff  observes  and  ordains."§ 


The  meaiis  employed,  to  uphold  and  promote  this  "  all  ministerial 
power"  II  of  the  Papacy.  They  are,  1st,  The  elevating  Traditiois" 
not  only  on  a  level  with,  but  above,  "  Holy  Scripture  ;"*f  2d,  De- 
nying the  Scriptures  to  the  laity ;  3cl,  Trampling  on  the  con- 
sciences and  the  rights  of  men ;  -ith,  Clerical  celibacy ;  5th,  Im- 
posing the  doctrine  of  sacramental  grace, — baptismal  regeneration 
— transubstantiation,  etc. ;  6th,  Image  worship ;  7th.  The  Con- 
fessional ;  8th,  Pilgrimages  and  Penances ;  9th,  Monasticism ; 
10th,  The  Inquisition ;  11th,  Purgatory. 

*  Dist.  Caus   11,  Qu.  3.  Si  inimicus.     Glossa. 

t  Bulla  Doiiationis,  Dist.  96.  C.  Constantine.  Paschalis.  Dist.  63.  C.  Ego.  Cle- 
ment V.  C.  Romani.  Glossa.  Bonif.  VIII  Sixt.  Decret.  C.  Ulbi.  Boniface.  Pro- 
hem.  C.  Sacrosancta.  Anadetus.  Dist.  22.  C.  Sacrosancta.  Bonif.  IV.  Sixt.  Decret. 
De  Penit  et  Remis.  C.  -5.  Glossa.  Alexaiid.  IV.  Sixt.  Decret.  C.  4.  Glo.«sa.  Hilarius, 
Dist.  2-5.  Qu.  1.  Nulli.— Sixt.  Decret.  C.  Ad  Arbitris.  Glossa.  Boniface.  Sixt.  De- 
cret. De  Const.  C.  Licet.  Innocent  III.  De  trans.  C.  Quanto.  Prohem.  Clement 
Glossa.  "  Papa  Stupor  mundi.  Nee  Deu.s,  nee  homo,  quasi  neuter  es  inter  utrumque." 
Boniface.  Extravag.  De  Majorit.  et  Obed.  C.  Unam.  Dist.  22  C.  Omnes.— Sixt.  De- 
cret De  Senten.  et  Rerum.  C.  ad  Apostoli,  and  the  Glossa. 

t  Lucius.  Dist  24.  Qu.  1.  C.  Recta.— Co/i'ar^us.  Dist.  12.  C.  Non  decit. — Innocent.  Dist. 
11.  C.  Quis. 

§  Caus.  2.  Qu.  7  C.  Beati.  Nicholas.  Dist.  22.  C.  Omnes.  Jnacleius.  Dist.  22.  C. 
Sacrosancta.  Pelagius.  Di.st.  21.  C.  Quamvis.  Nicholas.  Dist.  21.  C.  Denique.  Ste- 
phen.    Dist.  19.  C.  Enim  Vero. 

II  See  Part  I.  of  this  Treatise. 

'^  Bishop  McCoskrey's  Sermon,  Episcopal  Bishops  the  Successors,  etc.,  p.  13. 


224 

Thus  mucTi,  then,  respecting  "  the  false  ministry  of  this  infinite 
superstition."  And,  though  the  arrogant  and  blasphemous  as- 
sumptions of  the  system  as  here  exhibited  by  modern  Jesuitical 
artifice,  are  sought  to  be  palmed  upon  the  credulous  and  unsus- 
pecting under  a  more  modified  and  equivocal  guise ;  yet  "  it  should 
be  remembered  that  not  one  jot  or  tittle  of  the  whole  farrago  of 
impiety  and  despotism  has  ever  been  denied  or  rescinded ;  and 
that  the  whole  is  uniformly  taught  by  every  Romnu  priest  to  his 
votaries,  and  constantly  exacted  in  all  places  and  ]  >eriods,  when  it 
can  be  done  with  certainty  of  success."  Of  this,  the  anomaly  of 
the  so-called  French  Eepublic,  in  her  recent  unholy  crusade  against 
the  Italian  Triumvirate,  in  their  struggle  for  a  divorcement  of  the 
Papal  sword  from  the  miter,  and  the  conduct  of  his  Holiness  Pius 
IX.  since  his  restoration,  furnish  ample  proof. 


We  shall  now  proceed  to  compare  with  the  above,  the  aggre- 
gate powers  of  the  Prelatico-Episcopal  priesthood,  as  set  forth, 

2.  In  the  Protestant  theory,  Anglican  and  American,  of  that 
system.     And, 

(1.)  Of  its  claims  in  behalf  of  the  ministry  as  a  Christian  priest- 
hood. The  sources  of  information  defining  their  powers,  lie  scat- 
tered through  the  standard  writings  of  their  advocates,  their  re- 
spective rituals,  and  the  records  of  dioceses,  prelates,  parliaments, 
kings,  etc.  Regarding  their  views  of  the  Christian  ministry  as  a 
"  priesthood,"  we  must  refer  the  reader  to  our  quotations  from  the 
writings  of  the  Oxford  Tractate rs  and  of  the  High  and  Low  Church 
parties,  etc.,  as  given  on  pages  189-192,  inclusive. 

(2.)  Of  the  official  powers  alleged  to  inhere  in  this  priesthood. 
These  are  declared  to  be  "the  same"  with  the  "rank,"  "office," 
and  "headship"  of  Christ, — even  all  "  the  power  which  He  re- 
ceived from  the  Father,"  so  that  they  are  enabled  to  '■^  do  every 
thing  which  He  would  have  done,  had  He  continued  on  earths*  But, 
Christ  was  both  immaculate  and  infallible.  Therefore  Episco- 
pacy is, 

{a.)  Lnmaculate.  We  say.  Episcopacy.  Individual  bishops 
may  be  "traitors,"  "  deficient  and  untaught,"  "  corrupt,"  "  unwor- 
thy," etc.  But  inasmuch  as  we  are  informed  "  that  Ignatius, 
Cyprian,  and  others,"  have  decided  that  "  the  whole  college  of 
bishops  throughout  the  whole  world"  is  "  ONE  PERSON, "f  etc., 
in  other  words,  that  Episcopacy  is  ubiquitous  ;  its  inherent  purity 
cannot  be  vitiated,  though  "  transmitted  through — some,"  3^ea, 
even  "  many,  corrupt  channels.":}:     Thus  reasons  Rome.§ 

(J.)     Infallible.      Bishop  McCoskrey,  when   speaking   on  the 

*  See  quotations  on  this  subject,     pp.  214,  215,  etc. 
t  See  quotation,  pp.  189, 190. 
X  See  quotations,  pp.  218,  219. 
S  See  quotation,  pp.  220,  221. 


225 

subject  of  the  transfer  of  the  apostolic  powers  to  their  successors, 
and  of  their  knowledge  of  duty  in  regard  to  it,  says  that  "  mistake 
on  this  subject  was  impossible ;"  for,  sa3^s  he,  "  the  Holy  Ghost" 
was  given  to  them  "  to  keep  tliem  from  any  act  •wliicli  would  he 
wrong^'''*  etc.  "  Nor,"  says  he,  "  has  the  power  (given  by  the 
Savior)  been  taken  back.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  to  continue  to  the 
end  of  the  world."f  True,  "the  individuals  who  hold  the  office 
thus  given,"  says  he,  "  may  and  do  change  ;  but  the  office  creat- 
ed [Episcopacy]  has  not,  nor  can  it  clia'nge^''X  etc.  And,  in  con- 
firmation of  this  point  of  apostolical  infallibility,  he  refers  us  to 
the  appointment  of  Matthias  by  the  apostles  ;  who,  he  says,  "  under 
the  guidance  of  the  Spirit"  {i.e.^  as  bestowed  on  them  "  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost")  "which  was  to  lead  them  into  all  truth,"  "  could  not 
err  in  a  matter  which  would  forever  after  give  character  to  the 
Church  of  Christ."§  Indeed,  infallibility  is  an  inseparable  adjunct 
of  Episcopacy.  Prelatists  tell  us,  that  the  system,  not  being  posi- 
tively set  forth  in,  or  even  strictly  deducible  from,  the  New  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  aJone^  must  depend  upon  evidence  superadded  to 
Scripture.  But,  this  superadded  testimony,  alias^  tradition,  un- 
less autJioritative^  is  valueless,  when  offered  as  evidence  of  the  un- 
broken transmission  of  an  office  claimed  to  be  founded  in  divine 
ri(j  'i  t.  To  be  authoritative,  it  m  ust  he  inspired.  You  have  then  but  to 
truce  til  is  superadded  testimony  to  its  source — the  apostles,  and 
their  successors.  Hence  the  infallible  apostolic  traditions,]]  etc. 
Referring  tlie  reader  to  what  we  have  offered  on  the  subject  of 
apostolical  infallibility,  as  connected  with  the  alleged  apjDointment 
of  Matthias  as  the  successor  of  Judas, *][  etc.,  we  pass  to  an  ex- 
hibit 

{c^     Of  their  spiritual  powers. 

First.  Of  episcopo-priestly  absolution.  On  this  sub- 
ject, one  of  the  most  distinguished  prelates  of  the  American  Epis- 
copal Church  holds  the  following  language.  "  It  is  the  explicit 
sense  of  our  Church,  that  the  power  of  remission  and  retention  of 
sins  is  as  permanent  as  the  ministry,  and  is  an  essential  preroga- 
tive of  the  sacerdotal  office."  And,  he  adds, — "to  7'emit  sins,  is 
to  be  understood  in  its  literal  acceptation :  such  was  the  under- 
standing of  our  Church  when  the  Liturgy  was  prepared."'^*  No 
doubt,  Bishop  Ives.  You  are  right.  In  this  matter,  Ave  hold  that 
you  are  more  sinned  against  than  sinning.  Your  only  crime,  in 
our  view,  is,  an  honest  and  fearless  exposition  of  your  own  stand- 
ards. All  attempts  to  evade  the  "  soft  impeachment"  of  the  abso- 
luteness of  this  "  prerogative"  are  vain,  so  long  as  the  form  of  ab- 
solution in  the  morning  and  evening  service  of  the  Book  of  Com- 

*  Bishop  McCoskrey's  Sermon,  Episcopal  Bishops  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  p.  14. 

t  lb.,  pp.  8,  9.  t  lb.,  p.  8. 

§  lb.,  pp.  15,  16,  17. 

II  See  Part  I.     Preliminary  Essay  on  Tradition,  pp.  16,  et  seq. 

^  See  Part  II..  pp.  133-137.     Part  III.,  pp.  181,  182. 

**  Bp.  Ives's  Sermon  before  the  Convention  of  the  Diocese  of  North  Carolina,  1843. 

15 


226 

mon  Prayer  is  headed  by  the  rubric  following,  namely :  "  The 
declaration  of  absolution,  or  remission  of  sitis;  to  be  made  by 
the  priest  alone,  standing,  the  people  still  kneeling."  And  hence, 
/Second.  Of  episcofo-priestly  mediatoiiship,  "  None  but 
the  bishops"  says  Dr.  Dodwell,  "can  unite  us  to  the  Father  and 
the  Son."  "  Whoever  is  disunited  from  the  visible  communion  of 
the  Church  on  earth, — must  consequently  be  disunited  from  the 
invisible  communion  of  the  holy  angels  and  saints  in  heaven,  and 
what  is  yet  more,  from  Christ  and  from  God  himself  It  is  one  of 
the  most  dreadful  aggravations  of  the  condition  of  the  damned, 
that  they  are  banished  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,"  etc.  "  The 
scmie  is  their  condition,  also,  who  are  disunited  from  Christ,  by 
being  disunited  from  her  visible  representative,  the  bishop."* 
And  hence,  the  importance  with  which  this  theory  is  invested  by 
all  classes  of  its  advocates.  Speaking  of  the  apostolical  succes- 
sion, "  it  is  a  question,"  says  Bishop  McCoskrey,  "  involving  the 
eternal  mterests  of  millions, ^^f  etc.  Bishop  Griswold  tells  us,  "  if 
differing  denominations  of  Christians  are  ever  brought  to  strive 
together  for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  it  will  be  by  their  uniting  in  the 
government,  (whatever  t/iej/  may  decide  it  to  be)  which  God  has 
set  in  his  Church,":}:  i.e.,  bishops.  And  so,  Bishop  Mcllvaine  : 
*'  But  where  shall  we  find  these  officers,  of  whom  it  may  be  said 
without  arrogance,  —  they  are  the  successors  of  the  apostles  ? 
Where  are  they  ?  The  question  we  have  no  right  to  treat  as  un- 
important."— It  is  "by  no  means  of  a  merely  incidental  conse- 
quence ;  but  on  the  contrary,  of  vital  connection  with  the  perma- 
nent interests  of  religion,"§ 

-  Episcopacy, — "  vital"  to  the  "  interests  of  religion  ;"— "  involv- 
ing the  eternal  interests  of  millions,"  JVo  "  striving  together 
for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel"  without  it.  And  these,  the  avowed 
sentiments  of  tv/o  of  the  most  distinguished  prelates  and  powerful 
advocates  known  in  the  ranks  of  the  so-called  Evangelical  or 
Low  Church  party.  No.  "  None  but  the  bishops  can  unite  us  to 
the  Father  and  the  Son."  Like  the  Pope  of  Eome,  they  are 
"  neither  God  nor  man,  hut  hetween  hotJi.''^  On  this  subject,  we 
would  '  nothing  extenuate,  nor  set  down  aught  in  malice.'  "  God 
forbid."  But  we  deferentially  ask,  what  else,  what  less,  than  the 
assumption  of  a  mortal  mediatorship  between  God  and  the  souls  of 
men,  is  the  fair  inference  from  these  statements  ?  It  is  the  sup- 
planting Jesus  from  his  rightful  place  in  the  great  plan  of  human 
redemption,  as  the  "  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man."' 

(1)  1  Tim.  2  :5. 
*  Dodwell's  Lectures  on  the  Apostolic  Succession,  p.  105. 

t  Bishop  McCoskrey's  Sermon,  Episcopal  Bishops  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  p.  7. 
X  Bishop  Griswold  on  Apostolic  Succession.     Tracts  for  the  Church,  No.  I.,  p.  17. 
§  Argument  for  Apostolic  Succession,  etc. 


227 


SECTION   V. 

Episcopo-priestly  arrogance,  exclusiveness,  etc.,  in  regard,  1st.  To  the  ministry. — Re- 
marks on. — Protestant  Prelatists. — Dodwell. — Bishops  Griswold  and  McCoskrey. — 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng.  D.D.— 2d.  The  Church,  Anglican 
and  American,  identical. — Rev.  Mr.  Palmer,  Bishop  Hobart,  Fowler's  Catechism, 
and  Bishops  Brownell  and  Griswold. — Of  the  Episcopal  theory  of  the  Church. — 
(1.)  Spiritual. —  (2.)  Ecclesiastico-political. — Anglican. — Her  union  with  the  State. — 
Henry  VIlI.  declared  the  supreme  head  of,  in  Spirituals  and  Temporals. — Absolute 
and  unlimited. — Continued  under  Edward  VI. — Restored  under  Elizabeth. — Re- 
mains in  force  to  this  day. 

Third.  Of  episcopo-priestly  Arrogajstce  and  exclusiveness. 
And  that  in  reference, 

1st.  To  the  Ministry.  ^ 

We  would  simply  here  note,  by  the  way,  what  Romanists  offer 
on  this  subject.  "  Such  privileges  were  granted  by  Christ  to  the 
court  of  Rome,  that  unless  prelates  and  ministers  of  every  country 
take  their  origin  and  ordination  from  the  Pope,  they  are  not 
counted  of  the  true  church,"*  "  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  all 
Christians  (that  is,  ministers  not  Romish)  have  power  to  preach  the 
word,  and  administer  all  the  sacraments,  let  him  be  accursed."f 

Turn  now  to  the  voice  of  Protestant  prelacy.  "  None  but  the 
bishops  can  unite  us  to  the  Father  and  the  Son.";}:  "  Those  who 
profess  to  be  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  without  having  received 
Episcopal  ordination,  possess  no  more  ministerial  authority  than 
any  private  Christian."§  Bishop  Griswold  makes  Christian  union 
depend  upon  the  adoption  by  "  differing  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians,"— that  is,  Presbyterians,  Reformed  Dutch,  Congregationalists, 
Methodists,  etc., — of  the  Episcopal  ministry  or  "  government," 
which,  he  declares,  is  the  only  ministry  "  which  God  has  set  in  his 
Church."!  Bishop  McCoskrey,  speaking  of  the  apostolical  succes- 
sion, affirms  that  "  if  "  it  has  not  been  continued  in  the  Church 
down  to  the  present  day,  then  "  there  never  has  been  any  author- 
ized ministry  in  the  Church,  and  all  who  profess  to  be  commissioned 
as  amijassadors  of  Christ,  are  gross  impostors."  "  Then  all  who 
call  themselves  ministers  of  Christ  are  not  only  deprived  of  all 
right  to  preach,  but  also  the  only  comfort  which  could  sustain  and 
cheer  them  in  tiieir  arduous  and  oftentimes  thankless  office — the 
presence  of  the  Savior,"  etc.^f  In  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer, 
the  preface  to  the  form  of  "  making  bishops,"  etc.,  declares,  "It  is 
evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient 

*  Dreido  de  Dogmat.     Var.  Lib.  4. 
t  Council  of  Trent,  Session  7,  Canon  9. 

I  Dr.  Dodwell  on  Episcopacy,  p.  105. 

\  Rev.  Palmer  Dyer,  of  Whitehall.     Work  on  Episcopacy. 

II  Bishop  Griswold's  Sermon  on  the  Apostolic  Office,  p.  17. 

l  Bishop  McCoskrey's  Sermon,  Episcopal  Bishops  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  pp 
12,  13.  ^ 


228 

authors,  that  from  the  apostles's  time,  there  have  been  these  orders 
of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church, — bishops,  priests,  and  deacons," — 
and  "that  no  man  might  presume  to  execute  any  of  them,  except 
he  were  approved  and  admitted  thereto  by  lawful  (that  is,  Eim- 
copal)  "  authority."  And  the  Kev.  Dr.  T3aig,  speaking  of  the  op- 
position which  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  "  suffer,  from  the  mul- 
tiplied Protestant  denominations  around"  them,  "  Avho  renounce, 
and  not  unfrequently  revile,"  their  "  episcopacy ;  or  from  the 
liomish  Church,  which  denies  their  ministry,"  etc.,  says,  "  Let 
God  be  praised, — there  is  but  little  variety  of  judgment,  and  no 
readiness  of  concession^  among  any  of  our  ministers."* 

And  thus,  all  who  are  not  Episcojpally  ordained,  are  reminded  of 
the  analogy  which  they  hold  to  the  schisraatical  and  rebellious 
company  of  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram  in  the  camp  of  Israel, 
and,  hence,  that  they  are  doomed  to  share  a  corresponding  fate  ! 
But  from  this  let  us  turn  to  an  exhibit  of  their  views, 

2d.  Of  the  Church. 

In  the  first  place  :  "  Nulla  ecclesia  sine  episcopo.''''  "  Without 
a  bishop  there  is  no  church."  In  other  words,  "  None  but  the 
bishops,"  being  of  the  essence  of  the  Church,  "  can  unite  us  to  the 
Father  and  the  Son." 

In  the  next  place :  "  The  Church,"  as  thus  subsisting  in,  and 
dependent  for  its  perpetuity  on.  Episcopacy.^  we  pass  to  speak  of 
the  identity  of  the  Protestant  Anglican  and  American  branches  of 
it.  Both  bear  the  same  title,  the  latter  sustaining  to  the  former 
the  relation  of  a  daughter  to  the  mother.  We  shall,  therefore, 
treat  them  as  one — •'  The  Church."  Of  this,  prelatists  will  not 
complain.  In  consistency  with  the  current  nomenclature  of  their 
writers  on  this  subject,  they  appropriate  to  their  communion  the 
epithets,  "Holy  Catholic  Church" —  "  Holy  Mother"— "The 
Church"—"  The  Apostolical  Church  of  Christ,"  etc.  Take  the  fol- 
lowing as  a  few  of  the  numerous  extracts  which  might  be  given, 
in  illustration, 

(1.)  Of  her  arrogant^  proscripiive,  and  denunciatory  claims. 
Palmer,  in  speaking  of  the  rejection  of  episcopacy  by  the  Presby- 
terians of  Scotland,  says,  "  All  the  temporal  elements  and  powers 
of  the  whole  world  could  not  cure  this  fault,  nor  render  them  a 
portion  of  the  Church  of  Christ."  "  They  are  7io  part  of  the 
Church  of  Christ."  "  They  are  human  societies."  "  They  and 
their  generations  are  as  the  heathen;  and,  though  we  may  have 
reason  to  believe  that  many  of  their  descendants  are  not  obstinate 
in  their  errors,  still,  it  seems  to  me  that  we  are  not  warranted  in 
affirming  absolutely  t/iat  they  can  he  saved.^^-f  Bishop  Hobart : 
"  But  where  the  Gospel  is  proclaimed,  communion  with  the  Church 
(Episcopal),  by  the  participation  of  its  ordinances,  is  the  indis- 
pensable  condition  of  salvation.":};     "  As   there   is   but   one   hoiy 

*  Plea  for  Union.     A  Sermon,  by  S.  H.  Tyng,  D.D.,  Philadelpnia,  1844,  p.  15. 
t  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Church,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  ]  10,  309,  407. 
X  Hobarl's  Companion  to  the  Altar,  p.  202. 


229 

Catholic  or  universal  Church, — that  is,  "  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church," — "  we,  who  are  called,  have  no  hope  of  salvation,  l)ut  as 
being  faithful  members  of  tY."*  Bishop  Brovvnell,  of  Connecticut, 
speaks  of  "  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  as  an  oasis  in  the 
desert,"  which  is  but  the  echo  of  Dr.  Hook,  of  Leeds,  England, 
who,  in  speaking  of  the  Church  in  the  United  States,  uses  the  fol- 
lowing language :  "  There  you  may  see  the  Church,  like  an  oasis 
in  the  desert,  blessed  by  the  dews  of  heaven,  and  shedding  heavenly 
blessings  around,  in  a  land,  where,  because  no  religion  is  estab- 
lished, f  if  it  were  not  for  her,  nothing  but  the  extremes  of  infi- 
delity and  fanaticism  would  prevail.":}:  And,  finally.  Bishop  Gris- 
wold,  in  his  exposition  of  the  apostolical  office,  as  already  quoted, 
says  :  "  Indeed,  if  differing  denominations  of  Christians  are  ever 
brought  to  strive  together  for  the  faith  of  the  Gospel,  it  will  be 
by  their  Jirst  uniting  in  the  government  (Episcopacy)  which  God 
has  set  in  his  Church."     So, 

(2.)  Of  the  Episcopal  powers  of  the  Church. 

(a.)  Spiritucd.  A  recent  writer,  in  speaking  of  our  standard  ver- 
sion of  the  Bible  as  the  gift  to  us  of  "  the  Church  of  England,"  says 
of  her,  that  "  she  must  preach  to  you  the  word,  and  nothing  else — 
she  must  administer  to  j^ou,  according  to  the  record  of  her  testi- 
mony, which  you  hold  in  your  hands.  Within  her  prescribed 
boundaries,  her  power  is  absolute  over  you,  so  long  as  you  remain 
in  her  communion — a  communion  which  you  cannot  renounce, 
except  at  the  p)eril  of  your  salvation  !"§ 

One  of  the  Oxford  tractators  affirms:  "Our  people,  by  separating 
themselves  from  our  communion,  separate  themselves  not  only 
from  a  decent,  orderl}^,  useful  society,  but  from  the  only  Church  in 
this  realm  (England)  which  has  a  right  to  be  quite  sure  that  she 
has  the  Lord's  body  to  give  to  his  people."! 

Dr.  Henry,  the  American  editor  of  the  "Tracts  for  the  Times," 
says,  "  it  is  now  almost  universally  believed,  that  God  communi- 
cates his  grace  only  through  faith,  prayer,  spiritual  contemplation, 
communion  with  God,"  etc.  But,  to  show  how  exceedingly  hereti- 
cal all  this  is,  he  adds:  "It  is  the  Church  and  her  sacraments, 
which  are  the  ordained,  direct,  visible  means  of  conveying  to  the 
soul  that  which  is  invisible  and  supernatural. "^ 

There  is,  however,  yet  another  feature  of  this  system  of  Protes- 
tant prelacy,  which  we  must  not  overlook.  We  allude  to  Episcopacy, 

{I).)  In  its  eGclesiastico-political  aspect.  Let  not  the  reader  be 
startled  at  this.    Our  business  is,  to  look  Episcopacy  in  the  face  as 

*  Fowler's  Catechism. 

t  Attached  to  the  title  of  the  Anglican  Church  is  the  phrase,  "As  by  law  estab- 
lished ;■'  which  phrase  is  omitted  in  that  of  the  American  branch.  How  far  the  latter 
differs  from  the  former  in  its  f]nrit  and  inteyit,  will  form  a  subject  of  future  remark. 

X  Quoted  in  Episc.  Exam,  by  Chor.  Episcopi,  p.  70,  Utica,'l8'19. 

§   Quoted  by  Dr.  Snod^ras.s,  on  Apostolical  Succession,  p.  24. 

II   Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  IV.,  p.  5. 

\  Tracts  for  the  Times.  Advertisement,  Vol.  II.,  edited  by  Professor  Henry,  cf  the 
New  York  University. 


230 

IT  IS,  not  only,  but  to  exhibit  it  as  such,  to  others.  We  shall  then, 
dash  right  on,  in  medias  res. 

The  evidence  of  the  ecclesiastico-poHtical  character  of  the  Angli- 
can Church,  is,  her  union  with  the  State.  Whence  arose  it? 
Henry  VIIL  was  seated  on  the  English  throne,  April  22,  1509.* 
The  reader  need  scarcely  be  informed,  that  England  was  at  that 
time  subject  to  the  see  of  Rome.  The  ecclesiastical  prerogatives 
of  the  crown,  which,  for  a  long  period,  consisted  in  "the  inves- 
titures of  bishops  and  abbots,"  were  finally  wrested  from  its  grasp, 
and  for  more  than  three  centuries  were  merely  nominal.f  Under 
this  crafty  and  aspiring  monarch,  however,  the  tables  were  soon 
turned.  A  lover  of  learning,  and,  in  the  early  part  of  his  reign, 
a  zealous  devotee  of  Rome,  his  reputed  book  against  Luther  pro- 
cured for  him,  at  the  hand  of  Leo  X.,  the  title  of  "  Defender  of  the 
Faith.":}: 

But,  notwithstanding  his  acknowledgments,  and  fulsome  adula- 
tions, of  the  pontifical  authority,  spiritual  and  temporal,  in  that 
work,  he  converts  the  papal  bull  of  excommunication  issued  against 
him  by  Pope  Clement  VII.  for  peristing  in  his  divorce  from 
Queen  Catharine,  into  a  stepping-ladder  for  the  assumption,  him- 
self, of  similar  powers. 

Nor  was  he  wanting  in  agents  to  second  his  designs.  The  first 
blow  struck  at  the  papal  authority  in  England,  was  the  king's  in- 
dignant refusal  to  appear  before  the  tribunal  of  Rome,  upon  the 
citation  of  the  pope.g  This  was  followed,  soon  after,  by  his  twice- 
repeated  abolition  of  the  papal  power  in  England.|  The  bishops 
and  clergy  meanwhile  co-operating  with  him,  he  finally,  upon  the 
strength  of  arguments  adduced  by  the  former  against  the  papal 
supremacy  in  England,  as  alleged  to  be  drawn  from  Scripture  and 
tradition,  and  the  decrees  of  councils,  on  the  one  hand,  and  in 
support  of  the  spiritual  and  temporal  supremacy  of  the  king,  as 
alleged  to  be  founded  in  Scripture,  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
Church,  and  as  drawn  from  reason  and  the  laws  of  England,  on 
the  other :  and,  having  procured  from  the  latter  a  declaration 
against  the  pope's  supremacy,  he  was  at  length,  first,  by  the  con- 
vocation of  Canterbury,  and  subsequently  by  act  of  Parliament, 
declared  to  be  "  The  Piotector  and  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church 
and  the  Clergy  of  England;  "or,  "  That  the  King  was  the  Supreme 
Head  in  earth,  of  the  Church  of  England,"  which  was,  accordingly, 
annexed  to  his  other  titles.^  True,  upon  the  presentation  of  the 
first  petition  before  the  convocation,  it  was  moved  by  some  to  add 
these  words  to  the  title,  to  wit:  "in  so  far  as  it  is  lawful  by  the 
law  of  Christ."  But  Parker  says,  the  king  disliked  that  clause, 
since  it  left  his  power  as  "  supreme  head"  of  the  Church  on 
"earth"  still  disputable;  therefore,  it  was  cast  out,  and  the  petition 

*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  I,  p.  1.         f  lb-,  P-  18. 

X  lb.,  p.  .31.  (j  lb.,  p.  125. 

II  lb.,  pp.  223-23.3,  340,  T  lb.,  pp.  182,  183,  256. 


231 

was  carried  as  it  was  first  brouglit  in.*  Hence,  agreeably  to  the 
letter  and  spirit  of  the  powers,  temporal  and  spiritual,  vested  in 
the  English  monarch  under  the  above  title,  one  of  the  last  statutes 
enacted  by  him  is  the  following  : — that 

^'"Archbishops^  hishqps,  archdeacons^  and  other  ecclesiastical 
persons^  have  no  manner  of  jurisdiction  ecclesiastical^  hut  by, 
under ^  andfrom^  his  royal  majesty  ;  and,  that  his  majesty  is  the 

ONLY  SUPREME  HEAD  OF  THE  ChDECH  OF  EnGLAND  AND  IRELAND ; 

to  whom^  by  Holy  Scripture^  all  authority  and  power  is  wholly 
GIVEN,  to  hear  and  determine  all  manner  of  heresies^  errors^  vices, 
and  sins  ivhatever,  and  to  all  such  persons  as  his  majesty  shaU 
appoint  thereunto?''^ 

It  is  here  to  be  particularly  noted,  that  the  above  ecclesiastico- 
political  system  of  the  Anglican  Church  remained  in  fall  force 
under  Edward  YI.,  and  that,  though  supplanted  under  the 
bloody  Mar}'-  by  the  restoration  of  the  papal  supremacy,  yet  it  was 
again  revived  under  Elizabeth,  by  act  of  Parliament.  And  so, 
says  Mr.  Isaac  Taylor,  the  author  of  "Spiritual  Despotism"  (himself 
an  Episcopalian),  ^Ho  the  present  day  (1835),  the  English  establish- 
ment has  not  relieved  itself  of  the  humiliations  that  resulted  from 
the  surrender  it  at  first  made,  of  its  independence  to  the  civil 
magistrate.":}: 


SECTION  VI. 

Hence  the  surrender,  by  the  Anglican  Church,  of  her  independence  to  the  Civil  Magis- 
trate.— Henry  VIH.  the  fountain  of  the  English  Apostolical  Succession. — See  the 
King's  commission  to  Cranmer  — Renewed  under  Edward  VI. — The  American 
Episcopal  Church  at  the  period  of  the  Revolution. — Bishop  Seabury,  of  Connec- 
ticut.— Derivation  of  American  Episcopacy. — Obstacles. — How  removed. — Ap- 
proximations, in  spirit  and  in  form,  of  the  Ecclesiastico-political  character  of  the 
American  to  the  Anglican  Hierarchy. — Her  unprotestantizing  tendencies. — ^The 
British  Critic. — The  New  York  Diocesan  Conventions  of  1839  and  1843. — Rev. 
S.  H.  Tyng,  D.D. — Objections. — These  are  but  individual  opinions,  etc.— Reply. — 

Hobartian  sentiment  of  Charity    towards  Anti-Episcopalians. — Fallacy  of Six 

inferences  from  the  above. — Conclusion. 

By  the  surrender  of  the  independence  of  the  Anglican  Church 
to  her  ruling  monarch,  as  above  represented,  he  became,  as  we 
shall  now  show,  the  rouNTAiisr  whence  flowed  the  Apostolical 
successions  of  the  Anglican  and  American  Episcopal  Churches. 
Hence  the  following,  as  the  king's  commission,  authorizing  the  de- 
signation of  bishops,  etc.,  to  their  office.  "  Since  all  jurisdictions, 
both  ecclesiastical  and  civH,  flowed  from  the  king  as  supreme  head, 

*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  I.,  p.  183. 
t  Henry  VIII..  statute  .37,  chapter  17. 
t  Spiritual  Despr.tism,  p.  270. 


232 

and  he  was  the  foundation  of  all  power,  it  became  those  who  exer- 
cised it  only  {pj'cecaHo)  at  the  king's  courtesy,  gratefully  to  acknowl- 
edge, that  they  had  it  only  of  his  bounty,  and  to  declare  that  they 
would  deliver  it  up  again,  when  it  should  please  him  to  call  for 
it,"  etc.*  Then,  too,  compare  the  following,  as  declarative  of  the 
ahsoluUmess  of  the  supremacy  here  set  forth,  with  that  claimed 
by  the  Roman  PontifF.f  "  Howbeit  the  power  of  the  magistrate 
be  limited,  and  their  office  prescribed  by  God,  and  that  they  may 
likewise  fall  into  great  offences ;  yet  it  is  no  where  permitted  to 
subjects  to  call  their pinnces  in  question  y  or  to  make  insurrection 
against  them^  God  having  reserved  the  punishment  of  princes 
TO  niMSELF.":}: 

We  will  leave  it  for  others,  better  versed  in  the  science  of  hair- 
splitting than  we,  to  decide  between  the  merits  of  an  ecclesiastico- 
political  system,  founded  in  an  alliance  of  the  regal  with  the  sacer- 
dotal powers  by  a  so-called  spiritual  head  of  the  Church,  and  a 
system  having  for  its  basis,  the  assumption  by  a  temj^oral  prince, 
of  absolute  ecclesiastical  and  spii'itual  prerogatives. 

So  far,  then,  as  regards  the  Anglican  Church,  suffice  it  to  say, 
that  Cranaier's  bishopric  originated  under  this  commission  during 
the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  that  after  Henry's  death  he  refused 
to  exercise  his  functions  as  such  until  it  was  renewed  under 
Edward  VI.§ 

Of  the  American  Church,  we  now  remark,  that,  by  the  Eevo- 
lution,  the  Episcopal  churches  of  the  colonies  were  severed  from 
the  crown  and  Church  of  England,  and  were  left  without  a  head. 
It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  advert  to  the  well-known  expedient  of 
Dr.  White,  of  Pennsjdvania,  to  supply  this  defect,  which  was,  by 
a  consolidation  of  all  the  Episcoj)al  churches  throughout  the 
United  States  into  one  body,  under  a  system  of  ecclesiastical 
regimen,  which,  in  all  its  features,  was  essentially  Presbyterian. 
That  this  plan  met  with  opposition,  is  true.||  It  is  also  true  that 
the  necessity  urged  by  Dr.  White  in  justification  of  the  above 
measure,  was  finally  superseded  by  the  procurement  of  the  Epis- 
copate  for  the  American  Church,  by  the  consecrations  of  the  Rev. 
Drs.  White,  ]\fadison,  and  Provost. 

It  is  necessary  here,  however,  to  advert  to  the  fact,  that,  pending 
the  state  of  things  just  adverted  to,  Connecticut  had  supplied  her- 
self with  a  bishop — the  Rev.  Samuel  Seabury — whose  consecration 
was  derived  from  the  non-juring  bishops  of  Scotland.  But  this 
consecration  was  by  many  pronounced  invalid^  which  circumstance 
resulted  in  the  determination  to  seek  for  the  succession  through 
the  English  channel. 

*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  I.,  p.  429. 
t  See  p.  220. 

X  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  III.,  p.  429. 
\  lb.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  4-29.  430 ;  and  Vol.  11.,  p.  8. 

II  See  letter  of  Rev.  A.  C.  Jarvis  to  Mr!  White,  March  25,  1783.  Essays  on  Epis- 
copacy, etc.     T.  &  J.  Swords,  New  York.     180G. 


233 

In  the  very  outset,  however,  the  candidates  for  the  American 
Episcopate  were  called  to  encounter  a  barrier,  which  no  power  could 
remove,  save  by  a  special  act  of  king  and  parliament.  "By  the 
law  of  the  realm,"  as  we  have  seen,  the  king  was  declared  to  be 
"  the  protector  and  supreme  head  of  the  Church  and  clergy  of 
England  and  Ireland."  "Archbishops,  bishops,"  etc.,  had  "no 
manner  of  jurisdiction  but  by,  under,  and  from,  his  royal  majesty." 
Prelacy,  created  by  the  state,  was  under  the  absolute  control  of  the 
state.  No  bishop  could,  if  he  would,  move  hand,  or  foot,  or 
tongue,  hut  by  the  sufferance  of  the  croivn.  Their  consecration,  there- 
fore, was,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  subject  to,  and  dependent 
on,  the  capricious  will  of  England's  ecclesiastico-political  head. 

We  repeat,  the  capricious  will.  For,  there  M'ere  difficulties  in 
the  way.  First  and  foremost,  were  the  prej  udices  to  be  surmounted, 
in  order  to  the  extension  of  the  royal  clemency  toward  the  sub- 
jects of  a  government  which  owed  its  origin  to  the  abjuration  of 
British  misrule.  Another  obstacle  arose  from  the  exactions  of 
"  the  oath  of  allegiance"  to  the  crown  of  Great  Britain,  and  of 
"the  supremacy  of  the  king  as  head  of  the  Church,"  and  also  of 
"the  oath  of  due  obedience  to  the  archbishop,"  all  of  which  were 
indispensable  in  the  case  of  the  applicants  as  foreigners. 

A  compromise^  however,  was  finally  made,  by  the  enactment  of 
special  laws  to  meet  the  case  of  "  divers  persons,  subjects  or  citi- 
zens of  countries  out  of  his  majesty's  dominions,"  who,  having 
adopted  the  doctrines  and  liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England,  desire 
to  provide  themselves  with  "a  regular  succession  of  ministers  for 
the  service  of  their  Church,  according  to  the  form  of  consecration  of 
the  Church  of  England."  That  law  provided — First,  "  That  no 
person"  (that  is,  no  foreigner)  "  shall  be  consecrated  bishop  in  the 
manner  herein  provided,  until  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  or  of 
York,  for  the  time  being,  shall  have  first  applied  for  and  obtained 
his  majesty's  license^  by  warrant  under  his  royal  signet  and  sign 
manual,  authorizing  and  empowering  him  to  perform  such  conse- 
cration," etc.  Second,  "  That  no  person  or  persons  consecrated  to 
the  office  of  bishop  in  the  manner  aforesaid,  nor  any  person  or 
persons  desiring  their  consecration  from  and  under  any  bishop  so 
consecrated,  nor  an}"  person  or  persons  admitted  to  the  order  of 
deacon  or  priest  by  anj-  bishop  or  bishops  so  consecrated,  or  by 
the  successor  or  successors  of  any  bishop  so  consecrated,  sludl  he 
thereby  enabled  to  exercise  his  or  their  respective  offices  within  his  ma- 
jesty's dominions,^^  etc. 

"  The  summe  of  all,"  as  Jeremy  Taylor  would  say,  "  is  this  :" — 
The  three  American  candidates  for  the  Episcopate  before  the  Bri- 
tish throne,  accepted  coixsecration  on  these  terms^  and  they  received 
their  miters  from  the  hands  of  English  prelates,  the  existence  of 
whose  office  and  functions  ecclesiastical  was  derived  solely  from, 
and  the  exercise  and  perpetuity  of  which  depended  solely  on,  the 


•  234 

SUPREMACY,    temporal    and    spiritual,    male    or    female,    OF    A 
WOKLDLY  MONARCH! 

We  would,  therefore,  respectfully  propound  to  American  pre- 
latists  :  Where  is  the  difference  in  the  origin  and  nature  of  the 
Anglican  and  American  Episcopacy  ?  Both  were  derived  from 
the  same  source.  And,  if  it  be  said,  it  was  the  act  of  consecration 
by  "  lawfully  authorized"  agents,  which  made  them  bishops  ;  still, 
the  authority  to  act,  and  upon  which  the  validity  of  the  consecra- 
tion depended,  "flowed  from  the  king  as  supreme  head,"  and  as 
"  the  foundation  of  all  power."  On  this  subject,  the  learned  and 
honest  historian  Bishop  Burnet  has  said :  "  After  he  had  taken  his 
commission,  Bonner  might  have  well  been  called  one  of  tlie  king's 
hishojjs."*  But  so  was  Cranmer ;  and  that,  from  a  conscientious 
belief  in  the  divine  right  of  the  king  in  the  premises;  whereas  Bon- 
ner submitted  as  a  mere  matter  of  expediency,  f  And,  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  of  England  "  as  by  law  established," — not  by 
the  law  of  Christ,  but  of  the  crown  and  parliament — still  holds  her 
episcopate  under  that  tenure  !  The  same  follows,  of  course,  in  re- 
gard to  the  American  "  Protestant  Episcopal  Church." 

Such,  then,  being  the  ecclesiastico-political  origin  of  the  Ameri- 
can Episcopacy,  it  is  as  well,  perhaps,  in  this  place,  to  devote  a 
page  or  so  to  another  matter  of  no  small  interest  in  these  discus- 
sions.    It  relates  to, 

(3.)  The  tendency  of  the  American  branch,  to  approximate,  in 
this  particular,  both  in  spirit  and  in  form,  to  her  maternal  ally. 
The  question  then  presents  itself:  Is  it  so  ?  If  not,  we  ask.  How 
are  we  to  account  for  certain  phenomena  in  the  progress  of  those 
developments  of  the  system,  of  which  the  most  casual  observer 
cannot  but  be  cognizant  ?  Who  does  not  know  that,  in  consistency 
with  the  exclusive  and  intolerant  claims  and  denunciatory  spirit 
inseparable  from  the  "  all  ministerial  power"  assumed  by  pre- 
latists,  the  stereotyped  cognomen  "  the  Church,"  is  placed  in 
designed  contrast  with  the  alleged  self-constituted,  irresponsible, 
and  schismatical  conventicles  of  non-Episcopal  bodies ;  while  the 
style  and  title  of  each  and  every  bishop  is, — not  the  bishop  of  the 
Churches  in  this  or  that  particular  State,  but  the  bishops  of  the 
States  themselves !  Thus  we  have — the  Bishop)  of  Pennsylvania  ; 
the  Bishop  OF  New  York ;  etc. ;  and,  though  last,  not  least,  the 
would-be  '  My  Lord  Bishop  of  Jersey' ! 

We  are  fully  aware  of  the  fact,  that  the  least  intimation  of  a 
tendency,  in  the  American  prelatical  system,  toward  the  erection 
of  itself  into  a  National  Reliyion,  will  be  denounced  as  libelous. 
Still,  we  cannot  forget  that,  in  the  j-ear  1693,  which  marks  the 
first  step  of  advance  of  that  system  to  ecclesiastical  distinction  in 
the  colonies,  under  the  auspices  of  "Colonel  Benjamin  Fletcher, 
who  had  been  appointed  Governor  the  year  before,  a  man  of  great 
ardor  and  boldness,  and  warmly  attached  to  the  Episcopal  Church," 

*  Bishop  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  I.,  p.  429.         t  lb.  p.  430. 


235 

a  foundation  was  laid  for  a  Church  establishment  in  her  favor :  and 
that,  although  the  House  of  Assembly  was  decidedly  hostile  to  the 
measure,  yet  that,  owing  to  tne  untiring  perseverance  of  the  Gov- 
ernor in  its  behalf,  an  act  was  finally  passed,  which  constituted  the 
Episcopal  THE  National  Church  !  It  is  notorious  also,  that  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  Maryland  and  Virginia,  where  it  was  much 
more  extensive  than  in  this  State  [New  York],  had  legal  establish 
ments  for  its  support.  Indeed,  that  the  tendency  of  that  system  as 
above  intimated,  rests  not  on  mere  conjecture,  a  recent  writer,  look- 
ing, doubtless,  through  the  State-titled  dignitaries  of  "  the  Church," 
back  to  the  time  of  Governor  Fletcher,  in  speaking  of  the  Angli- 
can Church  and  her  American  daughter,  says — "  The  two  greatest 
and  purest  national  Churches,  are  now  evidently  approximating  to 
each  other,  much  in  spirit,  somewhat  in  form. — The  American 
Churchman,"  he  continues,  "  is  to  lay  aside  many  of  his  ultra  re- 
publican prejudices,  when  looking  at  the  Church  of  England. — He 
is  to  recognize  further,  in  its  alliance  of  church  and  state,  a  moral 
and  Christian  bond,  as  well  as  a  legal  and  arbitrary  one,  and  take 
care  lest  his  well-founded  objection  to  the  one,  lead  him  to  under- 
value the  inestimable  blessings  that  flow  from  the  other,"*  etc. 

'•  The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  these  United  States,"  with 
her  Anglican  mother,  "  the  two  greatest  and  purest  natio7ial 
Churches^ 

Willing  to  leave  the  reader  to  his  own  reflections  and  inferences 
in  view  of  these  facts,  we  pass  to  an  exhibit  of  another  class  of 
approximations,  in  "  spirit"  and  in  "  form,"  of  the  American 
Church  to  her  Anglican  progenitor. 

One  significant  "  sign"  of  the  above  "approximating"  process, 
may  be  gathered  from  her  zealous  endeavors  to  divest  her  of  her 
Protestant  character.  The  "  momentous  object"  of  the  Tractarian 
movement  in  England  was  declared  to  be,  that  of  "  UNPKOTEST- 
ANTIZING"  the  Anglican  Church.  And,  having  commenced 
the  work,  the  "  British  Critic"  holds  the  following  language:  "  We 
cannot  stand  where  we  are  ;  we  must  go  backwards  \i.e.^  to  Gene- 
-ya]  or  forwards  \i.e.^  to  Borne'] ;  and  it  Avill  surely  be  the  latter. 
It  is  ahsolutely  necessary  towards  the  consistency  of  the  sy stein — 
[i.e.^  of  Prelacy]  that  truths  should  be  clearly  stated,  which  as  yet 
have  been  but  intimated,  and  others  developed  which  are  now  but 
in  germ.  And  as  we  go  on,  we  must  recede  more  and  more  from 
the  principles,  if  any  such  there  be,  of  the  English  Eeforma- 
tion."t 

The  very  princi^Dle,  this,  for  which  we  contend.  We  challenge 
the  advocates  of  prelacy  to  evade  it.  The  a?i^i-evangelic  fruits  of 
the  Laudean  system, — itself,  as  we  insist,  but  the  natural  pro- 
duct of  the  prelatical  scheme  at  first  founded  in  expediency,:}: — had 
completely  paralyzed  the  spiritual  energies  of  the  British  nation. 

*f  The  Church  of  England  and  in  America  compared.     New  York,  1841. 

t  British  Critic,  No.  LIX.,  p.  45,  1843.     %  See  Chap.  VI.,  Sec.  I.,  of  this  Treatise. 


236 

With  the  "  form,"  they  liad  lost  th-e  "  power"  of  "  godliness."' 
Under  tliese  circumstances  originated,  under  God,  the  ministries  of 
a  Wesley  and  a  Whiteficld.  The  result  of  their  ministrations  was, 
the  diffusion,  as  well  within  as  without,  the  pale  of  "  the  Church 
as  by  law  established,"  of  an  influence  which,  for  a  while,  checked 
the  lioineward  tendency  of  Episcopacy,  and  gave  to  it  a  Genevan 
direction.  Thus  was  it,  at  the  time  of  the  commencement  of  the 
Oxford  Tractarian  movement.  Episcopacy,  under  the  influence  of 
the  \Vesley  and  Whitefield  Eeformation,  had  sunk  to  so  low  a 
standard  in  the  Church,  that,  in  the  estimation  of  these  Oxonians, 
its  days  were  numbered,  unless,  by  a  vigorous  effort,  it  be  restored 
to  its  natural  and  legitimate  powers  and  immunities,  This  was 
"  absolutely  necessary  towards  the  consistency  of  the  system." 
Hence,  with  this  movement,  corresponds 

The^j>^a?i  for  its  accomplishment.  Having  stated,  as  a  "fact," 
that  "  the  progress  of  Catholic  opinions  in  England  for  the  last 
seven  years  [ending  in  1S41]  was  so  inconceivable,  that  no  hope 
should  appear  extravagant;"  another  writer  says,  "Let  us,  then, 
remain  quiet  for  some  years,  till,  by  God's  blessing,  the  ears  of 
Englishmen  are  become  accustomed  to  Jiear  the  name  of  Uo^siE  jrro- 
nounced  with  reverence.  At  the  end  of  this  term  you  will  soon 
see  the  fruits  of  our  patience."* 

This  prognostication  of  the  Prophetico-Anglican  Baal,  how 
si oiialljr  verified  !  Of  the  original  leaders  of  this  "  unprotestant- 
izing  movement,"  where  now  is  Newman,  the  author  of  Tract  No. 
90?  Where  is  Ward,  the  author  of  "The  Ideal  of  a  Church"? 
And  where  Oakley,  and  Faber,  and  hundreds  of  others  of  the 
clerg}^,  besides  a  large  number  of  the  laity  of  both  sexes  ? 

So  too,  in  the  A'nierican  Episcopal  Church.  These  same  "  un- 
protestantiziug"  principles,  in  all  their  length  and  breadth,  have 
been  commended  to  and  pressed  upon,  both  the  clergy  and  laity 
by  so  many  clothed  with  the  highest  authority  in  the  Church, 
seconded  by  the  co-operation  both  of  the  j^ulpit  and  the  press,  that 
the  leaven  is  now  fairly  diffused  throughout  almost  the  entire  body.f 
Attempts  have  even  been  made,  sanctioned  by  more  than  one 
Episcopal  Chair,  as  we  have  said,  to  erase  from  their  ecclesiastical 
escutcheon  the  very  name  of—"  Protestant."  Witness  the  acts  of 
the  Diocesan  Conventions  of  New  York  in  1839  and  1843,  on  this 

(1)  2  Tim.  3  :5. 

*  Letter  of  John  Dobree  Dalgairus,  Esq.,  M.A.,  aZtas,  Rev.  G.  Spencer,  of  Oxford,  to 
the  Editor  of  the  Univers.     Bricknell's  Jiidg.,  etc..  p.  678. 

t  Hence  the  conslant  lamentations  of  the  so-called  Evangelical  Low  Church  party  in 
that  body,  as  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  any  number  of  the  Protestant  Cliurchinan.  e\.c.^ 
for  the  last  eight  years  ;  a  fact,  1  submit,  confirmatory  of  the  position  assumed  in 
this  Treatise,  namely  :  that  the  ground  occupied  by  them  furnishes  the  only  prop  to  the 
entire  fabric  under  its  present  title.  And,  these  lamentations  will  be  found  exactly  to 
quadrate  with  the  fear,  on  their  part,  that,  just  in  proportion  with  the  discovery,  by  the 
Evangelicals  of  "other  denominations,'-  of  the  Romcward  tendency  of  the  theory  of 
prelacy  as  it  is,  will  be  their  loss  of  the  prospect  of  building  up  their  Church  on  the 
ruins  of  others. 


237 

subject,  "Witness  also  on  the  same  subject  a  communication  ad- 
mitted into  the  columns  of  The  Churchman  of  18-1:3,  declaring  that 
"  the  title-page  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  contained  'jyrima 
facie  evidence  of  schism,"  etc.,  "  and  boldly  recommending  a  re- 
union wn'n  Rome,  on  the  common  basis  of  the  authorized  Decrees 
of  Trent,"  And,  if  further  evidence  be  wanting,  we  have  only  to 
refer  to  the  ordination,  in  St,  Stephen's  Church,  New  York  City, 
of  the  young  semi-papist  Carey  by  Bishop  Onderdonk  in  1843,* 
and  of  the  advocacy  of  that  Episcopal  act  by  the  Rev,  Stephen  H. 
Tyng,  D,D. ;  together  with  the  bold  advocacy,  by  The  Churchman 
and  other  church  journals  for  the  last  eight  or  ten  years,  of  the 
theology  of  the  Tractarians,  and  particularly  of  Newman's  famous 
"  Tract  No,  90,"  in  support  of  the  monstrous  proposition,  that  a 
clergyman  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  might  hold  all  the 
doctrines  contained  in  the  Romish  Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  (the 
anathemas  excepted)  and  yet,  in  virtue  of  his  having  subscribed  to 
the  XXXIX  Articles,  continue  to  serve  at  her  altars. 

Nor  is  the  cry  of  "  peace!  peace!"  proclaimed  from  the  pulpit 
and  through  most  of  the  religious  journals  of  "the  Chukch"  in 
the  midst  of  these  commotions,  as  a  means  of  securing  this  end, 
the  least  portentous  "sign"  of  the  future.  " Coming  events  cast 
their  shadow  before."  To  ^'"remain  quiet  for  some  years^  till,  by 
God's  blessing  (!  ?)  the  ears  of  "  Protestant  Episcopalians  in  Ameri- 
ca "  are  become  accustomed  to  hear  the  name  of  Rome  pronounced 
with  reverence,"  is  the  policy  alike  of  the  "  unprotestantizers"  of 
the  Church  in  both  hemispheres.  Indeed,  the  most  zealous  pro- 
moters of  the  scheme,,  are  the  first  to  decry  any  such  intent.  Take, 
as  evidence,  a  pamphlet  "  No  Union  with  Rome ;  an  address  to  the 
members  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, — occasioned  by  the 
unjust  accusation  of  a  tendency  in  our  communion  towards  the 
errors  of  the  present  Church  of  Rome,  by  the  Rev,  S,  F,  Jarvis, 
D,D,,  L,L.D,"f  "Occasioned  by  the  unjust  accusation,"  etc.  And 
yet,  the  learned  author  of  this  very  address, — and  who,  let  it  be 
recollected,  sustains  to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  these 
United  States,  (and  that  by  the  appointment  of  the  General  Con- 
vention) the  high  and  responsible  relation  of  "Historiographer" 
of  the  Church  ; — rejoices  that  "  the  truly  Catholic  doctrines  held 
by  the  Church  of  Rome"  in  this  country  "are  prominently  brought 
forward;"  and,  that  "those  [doctrines]  which,  in  reality,  are  heret- 
ical, are  softened  and  explained  away  ;"  and,  that  he  is  "neither 
sorry  nor  alarmed,  when  he  hears  them  telling  their  laity,  that  we" 

*  For  the  edification  of  Low  Churchmen,  and  the  information  of  those  of  '-other  de- 
nominations," we  respecfully  refer  them  to  •'  A  Letter  sustaining  the  recent  Ordination 
of  Mr.  Arthur  Carey  ;  By  Stephen  H.  Tyng.  D.D.,  Rector  of  the  Church  of  the 
Epiphany,  and  lately  one  of  the  editors  of  the  Episcopal  Recorder.''''  (D.  Appleton  & 
Co.,  N.  Y.,  1843.)  And  also  of  an  "  Epistle"  to  him  by  "  Washington  Plens.  Esq.,  in 
which  he  shows,  that  the  said  Dr.  Tyng  carries  his  advocacy  of  the  powers  of  the  Epi.«co- 
pate  to  such  an  extent,  that  even  Dr.  Seabury  said  he  could  not  go  the  same  length  with 
him. 

t  An  Address,  etc.     H.  Huntington.     Hartford,  Conn.     1843.      (Lately  deceased.) 


/  ^ 


238 

(i.e.^  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church)  "are  advancing 
TOWARDS  THEM  ;"  and  closes  his  address  by  expressing  the  "  holy 
hope,  at  no  distant  period,  of  being  united  in  one  holy  commun- 
ion," etc.* 

In  conclusion,  then,  on  this  subject.  The  scheme,  it  would  ap- 
pear, of  leveling  up  the  principles  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  her  ministry,  doctrines,  ceremonials  and  polity,  till  they 
can  coalesce  with  the  leveling  doum  policy  of  the  Komish  system, 
is  the  process  by  which  this  "  union"  is  to  be  accomplished.  Yes. 
AVhat  Home  deems  "  heretical"  in  the  doctrines,  etc.,  of  the  Angli- 
can and  American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  is  to  be  raised, 
"  by  little  and  little,"  to  the  standard  of  the  creed  of  Pope  Pius 
IV.,  and  those  which,  in  the  Pomish  Church,  "  in  reality  are 
heretical,"  are,  "by  little  and  little,"  to  be  ^^  softened  and  explained 
away^^  "  till,  by  God's  blessing,  the  ears  of  [Episcopalians]  are  be- 
come accustomed  to  hear  the  name  of  Rome  pronounced  with  reve- 
rence" !  Who,  then,  can  doubt  that,  "at  no  distant  period,"  as 
Dr.  Jarvis  expresses  it,  the  long-divorced  Anglican  branch  of  the 
papal  apostasy,  with  her  American  offspring,  will  be  again  "united 
in  one  holy  communion."     And, 

Finally,  for  this  consummation,  if  the  practical  workings  of  a 
gray-grown  and  almost  universally  prevalent  theory,  developed 
under  every  variety  of  circumstances  as  to  time,  place,  characters 
concerned,  etc.,  may  be  taken  in  evidence,  that  of  the  dogma  of 
an  unhroken  apostoliccd  succession  is  of  itself  sufficient.  In- 
deed, all  other  approximating  influences  hold  to  this  dogma  the 
relation  of  effect  to  its  cause.  As  its  natural  offspring,  they  be- 
come the  faithful  agents  of  its  support  and  extension.  Nor  are 
they  the  less  tenacious  in  their  regards  for,  nor  less  effective  in 
their  support  of,  the  honor,  and  the  arrogant,  exclusive  and  pro- 
scriptive  claims,  of  their  common  parent,  when  "  softened  and  ex- 
plained away"  under  the  false  drapery  of  LOW  CHURCHISM" ! 

We  are  aware,  however,  that  to  the  above  it  is  objected — these 
are  hut  the  incaidiously-expressed  opinions  of  individuals.^  and  are 
not  therefore  to  be  taken  as  exponent  of  the  general  sentiment  of 
"the  Church"  on  the  subject  in  question;  and,  we  are  reminded 
of  the  liberal  and  Catholic  Christianity  of  Episcopacy,  as  set  forth 
in  the  Hobartian  sentiment  following  :  "  Separation  from  the  pre- 
scribed government  and  regular  priesthood  of  the  Church,  when  it 
proceeds  from  involuntary  and  unavoidable  ignorance  or  error,  we 
have  reason  to  trust,  will  not  intercept  from  the  humble,  the  peni- 
tent and  obedient,  the  blessings  of  God's  favor."f 

But,  the  deep  obligation  which  this  exhibit  of  charity  and  Chris- 
tian magnanimity  imposes  on  yjo/i-Episcopalians,  to  the  contrary 
notwithstanding),  the  fact,  we  apprehend,  of  the  miscellaneous 
character  of  our  quotations  as  above,  being  selected  alike  from  the 

*  An  Address,  etc      H.  Huntington.     Hartford,  Conn.     pp.  43,  44. 
t  Hobart's  Companion  for  the  Altar,  p.  202. 


239 

writings  of  Tractarians  and  of  High  and  Low  Cliurclimen,  both 
Anglican  and  American,  cannot  other  than  awaken  a  suspicion, 
that,  after  all,  it  is  designed  as  a  Jesuitical  clap-trap — '*  bj  good 
words  and  fair  speeches,"  to  "deceive  the  hearts  of  the  simple.'" 
Otherwise,  how  is  it,  we  ask,  that  the  same  Bishop  Hobart,  in  his 
"  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts"  of  the  Church,  in  a  quo- 
tation from  Daubeny,  says — "  Whoever  IS  in  communion  with  the 
bishop,  the  supreme  governor  of  the  Church  on  earth,  IS  in  com- 
munion with  Christ,  the  head  of  it ;  and  whoever  IS  NOT  in  com- 
munion with  the  bishop,  is  thereby  CUT  OFF  from  communion 
with  Christ ;"  and  this  is  declared  to  be  a  "  general  conclusion," 
"  established"  by  "  the  uniform  testimony  of  ALL  the  apostolical 
and  primitive  writers."*  Dr.  Mason,  in  quoting  this  passage  in 
his  "  Essays  on  Episcopacy,"  etc.,  asks,  "  How  many  bow-shots  are 
such  writers  otf  from  the  territory  of  '  our  sovereign  Lord  the 
pope  ?'  "f  Will  Protestant  prelatical  traditionists,  the  advocates  of 
the  "ancient  authors"  of  prayer-book  notoriety,  please  answer? 

No.  The  above  extracts,  when  analyzed,  affirm  of  this  Angli- 
can and  American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  that  she  is, 

1.  The  only  "  visible  Catholic  Church  of  Christ  on  earth  ;"  "  an 
oasis  in  the  desert,"  without  which  "nothing  but  the  extremes  of 
infidelity  and  fanaticism  would  prevail." 

2.  That  she  only,  as  having  "  the  ordained,  direct,  visible  means 
of  conveying  to  the  soul  that  which  is  invisible  and  spiritual,"  is 
empowered  to  dispense  sacramental  grace ;  in  other  words,  to 
"  give  the  Lord's  body  to  the  people." 

3.  That,  as  the  only  "  Universal  Catholic  Church  of  Christ  on 
earth,"  "  her  power  over  her  members  is  absolute." 

4.  That,  consequent  of  her  ecclesiastico-political  origin,  the  two 
branches,  Anglican  and  American,  of  which  she  is  composed,  con- 
stitute "  the  two  greatest  and  purest  national  churches"  on  earth. 

5.  That,  on  the  principle  of  "approximations,"  the  "national" 
American  is  rapidly  advancing  towards  the  "  national"  Anglican, 
and  both  towards  a  union,  "  at  no  distant  period,"  "  in  one  holy 
communion,"  with  "  the  Church  of  Rome."  And  hence,  and 
finally, 

6.  That  all  other  Churches  bearing  the  Protestant  name,  are 
mere  "  human  societies ;"  that  their  members  "  are  as  the  heathen ;" 
that  they  are  "  disunited  from  the  communion  of  the  Church  on 
earth,"  from  "  the  angels  and  saints  in  heaven,"  and  "  from  God 
and  Christ  himself,"  and  that  communion  with  her  "  is  the  indis- 
pensable condition  of  salvation." 

Now,  we  appeal.  "  To  unchurch,"  as  do  the  above  prelatical 
flourishes  of  the  pen,  "all  the  non-episcopal  denominatious  under 
heaven,  and  cast  their  members,  indiscriminately,  into  a  condition 

(1)  Rom.  16  :  18. 
*  Hobart's  Companion  for  the  Festivals  and  Fasts  of  the  Church,  p.  59. 
t  See  '•  Essays"  etc.,  p.  31,  noCe.    R.  Carter,  New  York,  1844. 


240 

worse  than  that  of  the  vcrj-  heathen  ;"  to  declare,  that  "  all  those 
glorious  churches  which  have  flourished  in  Geneva,  Holland,  France, 
Scotland,  England,  Ireland,  etc.,  since  the  Heformation ;  and  all  which 
have  spi'cad,  and  are  spreading  through  this  vast  continent — that 
those  heroes  of  the  truth,  who,  though  they  bowed  not  to  the 
miter,  rescued  millions  from  the  Man  of  siu,  lighted  up  the  lamp 
of  genuine  religion,  and  left  it  burning  with  a  pure  and  steady 
flame  to  the  generation  following — that  all  those  faithful  ministers, 
and  all  those  private  Christians  who,  though  not  of  the  hierarchy, 
adorned  the  doctrine  of  God  their  Savior,  living  in  faith,  dying  in 
faith ;  scores,  hundreds,  thousands  of  them  going  away  to  their 
Father's  house  under  the  strong  consolations  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
with  anticipated  heaven  in  their  hearts,  audits  hallelujahs  on  their 
lips — that  all,  all,"  in  consequence  of  their  "involuntary  and  un- 
avoidable ignorance  and  error,"  were  and  are  "  without  the  pale  of 
the  visible  Church,"  and  as  such,  left  to  "  the  uncovenanted  mercies 
of  God:"  andyet^  the  system  which,  both  in  theory  and  practice, 
does  this,  is  neither  exclusive  or  denunciatory  !  "  Communion 
with  the  Church"  (Episcopal)  "where  the  Gospel  is  proclaimed, 
by  a  participation  of  its  ordinances,"  declared  to  be  "the  indis- 
pensable condition  of  salvation  ;"  and  yet,  the  system  which  de- 
clares it  claiming  exemption  from  the  imputations  of  intolerance 
and  proscription  !  Wh}^,  "  the  very  idea  of  such  an  escape,  how- 
ever to  be  effected,  is  repugnant  to  that  of  an  indispensable  condition. 
No ;  if  the  condition  be  indispensable,  they  who  reject  it  must 
perish."  For,  "  if  they  who  reject  it  may  still  be  saved,  it  is  not 
indispensable ;  otherwise,  the  definition  may  run  thus  :  an  indis- 
pensable condition  is  that  Avhich  may  be  dispensed  with." 

"  The  alternative  then," — maugre  all  the  pretenses  of  charity 
toward  those  without  the  pale  of  "  the  Church,"  though  placed 
there  by  "involuntary  and  unavoidable  ignorance  and  error;"  in 
other  words,  without  any  fault  of  their  own, — the  only  alternative 
is,  "  Episcopacy  or  Perdition."* 

*  Mason's  Essay  on  Episcopacy. 


241 


CHAPTEE  IV. 

OF  THE  PEELATICO-EPISCOPAL  THEOET  OF  ORDINATION,  AS  THE  ONLY 
ALLEGED  DIVINELY- APPOINTED  MODE  OF  PERPETUATING  THE  APOS- 
TOLICAL SUCCESSION. 

SECTION    I. 

Recapitulation  of  the  preceding  two  additional  points  of  inquiry. — Ordination,  or 
"  the  laying  on  of  hands"  by  Christ,  liis  apostles  and  their  successors,  alleged  to  be 
the  only  channel  of  perpetuating  a  valid  ministry  and  ordinances,  through  "  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." — Quotations  from  Romanists,  the  Anglican  and  American 
Ordinal,  Bishop  Taylor,  Dr.  Hook,  and  Bishops  Beveridge,  Hobart,  Griswold,  and 
Mcllvaine. — Remarks  on  Ordination  in  Part  II.  of  this  Treatise. — Fallacy  of  the 
above  theory. — Three  inferences. — Prelatical  and  Anti-Prelatical  theories  com- 
pared.— Proof  that  the  Prelatical  theory  is  borrov^ed  from  Rome,  etc 

We  have  now  presented  to  the  reader  a  view  of  the  Prelatico- 
Episcopal  theory  in  the  aspect,  I.,  of  its  nature  and  character  as 
a  Christian  Priesthood^  founded  on  the  alleged  antitype  of  the 
Aaronic  and  Melchisedekiau  orders,  with  an  exhibit  of  the  argu- 
ments for  and  against  it.  And  II.,  of  the  extent  of  its  alleged 
poioers^  as  claimed  to  have  been  derived,  first,  from  Christ  to  his 
apostles  ;  and  second,  from  his  apostles  to  their  successors.  And, 
third,  that  these  powers  were  claimed  to  have  been  transferred 
whole  and  entire^  which  was  proved,  fourth,  by  quotations  from 
the  four  classes  of  its  advocates,  Romish,  Tractarian,  and  High 
and  Low  Church ;  and  that,  pre-eminent  among  these  powers  was 
that  of  conferring  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost — the  highest  preroga- 
tive apostolic. 

Two  additional  points  of  inquiry  in  this  connection  yet  await  • 
us.     These  relate, 

I.  To  the  channel  through  which  this  divine  gift  is  alleged  to 
have  been  conveyed  ;  and, 

II.  To  the  alleged  fact  of  its  uninterrupted  transmission  from 
the  apostles's  times  down  to  this  d&j. 

1.  First,  then.  The  channel  through  which  this  divine  offt 
IS  alleged  to  have  been  conveyed. 

Prelatists,  having  assumed  that  the  New  Testament  apostles 
were  to  have  successors  to  the  end  of  the  world,  allege  that  the 
power  to  transfer  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  imparled  to  them 
16 


242 

and  to  their  succepsors  by  o7-dinalion,  or  the  laying  on  of  hands ; 
and  that  consequently,  it  is  not  only  unscriptural  but  highly  pre- 
sumptuous and  perilous,  for  any  not  Episcopally  consecrated  or 
ordained,  to  exercise  any  of  the  functions  of  minister  in  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

Take  the  following,  as  expressive  of  the  general  view  of  this 
subject.  Bomanists  tell  us,  "  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  not  given  by  ordination^  and  therefore,  that  the  bishops 
say  in  vain,  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost — let  him  be  accursed."  *  In 
the  Anglican  and  American  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  at  the 
consecration  and  ordination  of  every  bishop  or  priest,  is  used  the 
form  following : — "  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  office  and 
work  of  a  bishop  in  the  Church  of  God,  now  committed  to  thee 
by  the  imposition  of  pur  hands,^^  etc.  Perceval  saj's :  "  The  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles  are  those  who  are  descended  in  a  direct  line 
from  them  by  Ute  imjjosition  of  hands^ f  Bishop  Taylor  :  "To  the 
apostles  he  (Christ)  gave  a  plenitude  of  power" — "  they  received 
a  power  of  giving  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  collation  of  Holy  Or- 
ders," and  their  "  successors  had  the  same  right,"  etc.:};  Dr.  Hook 
says  :  "  The  prelates,  who  at  this  time  rule  the  churches  of  these 
realms,  were  validly  ordained  by  others,  who,  by  means  of  an  un- 
broken spiritual  descent  of  ordination,  derived  their  mission  from 
the  apostles  and  from  our  Lord."§  "  Through  the  bishops  who 
ordained  us,  we  received  the  Holy  Ghost."  ||  Bishop  Beveridge 
says :  "  The  apostolical  line  hath  been  preserved  entire,  by  virtue 
of  that  apostolical  imposition  of  hands,  which,  being  begun  by  the 
apostles,  hath  been  continued,"  etc.^^  Bishop  Hobart  says  that 
"  the  only  source  of  power  in  the  Christian  Church  flows  from  its 
divine  source  through  the  channel  of  the  first  of  the  three  orders," 
namely,  bishops.**  Bishop  Griswold  says  :  "  Ever  since  the  apos- 
tles's  days,  none  but  those  who  have  the  general  oversight  of  all 
the  churches  in  a  city,  or  state,  or  province,  with  poiver  to  ordain, 
are  called  bishops,"  and  that  "  such  only  are  commissioned  to 
transact  with  mankind  the  momentous  concerns  of  their  eternal 
salvation. "ft  According  to  Bishop  McHvaine,  this  spiritual  pro- 
creating apostolic  "  seed  is  in  itself,  after  its  kind,"  and  "  at 
every  step  of  the  succession  it  is  precisely  the  same  ministry  and 
just  as  much  of  God,  sanctioned  by  his  authority  and  sustained  by 
his  power,  as  if  it  had  been  received  from  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  Christ  himself''  And,  finally,  that  this  spiritual  procreating 
"  seed,"  though  conveyed  through  a  polluted  conduit, — "  corrupt 

*  Council  of  Trent,  Ch.  IV.,  Sec.  4,  of  Can.  1,  p.  85. 

t  Perceval's  Coll.  of  Papers,  p.  12. 

t  Bishop  Taylor's  Episc.  Assert.     Oxford  Ed.,  1642.     Small  4to.,  p.  46. 

§  Two  Sermons  on  the  Church  and  the  Establishment,  pp.  7,  8. 

II  Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  VII.,  p.  2. 

TT  Bishop  Beveridi^e's  Sermons  on  the  Church,  p.  26. 

**  High  Churchman  Vindicated,  p.  1 1.     1826. 

tt  Bishop  Griswold  on  Apostolical  Succession.     Tract  No.  I.,  pp.  7,  8. 


243 

channels"* — "  the  deficient  and  untaught" — even  "  though,  in  the 
main,  the  given  lesson  be  falsehood,  and  the  proffered  sustenance 
little  better  than  poison,"f  yet  it  cannot  be  vitiated  or  destroyed : 
for,  says  Bishop  McHvaine,  "  let  it  be  remembered  that  Judas 
Iscariot  was  numbered  with  the  apostles  by  the  Savior  himself, 
and  Judas  was  a  traitor  !"+ 

In  treating  of  this  subject  of  ordination  in  Part  II.,  ||  we  observed, 
that  while  some  sunk  it  helow^  and  others  raised  it  ahove^  the  scrip- 
tural standard,  Paul  having  placed  it  among  the  rudiments  of 
Christianitv — "  the  doctrine  of  laying  on  of  hands"  '—by  which  it 
was  erected,  into  a  standing  religious  rite  ;  its  manipulating  action 
bemg  svmbolic,  it  became  fundamental  to  an  understanding  of  its 
nature  and  design,  to  determine  in  what  that  symbolic  action  con- 
sisted :  whether  it  was  a  mere  unmeaning  ceremony,  or,  whether 
it  was  a  sacramental  channel  for  the  communication  of  grace  from 
one  to  another. 

Our  exhibit  of  the  uninterrupted  perpetuity  of  this  rite,  together 
with  the  solemnly  interesting  occasions  on  which,  and  the  persons 
by  whom,  it  was  administered  under  the  three  dispensations.  Pa- 
triarchal, Jewish,  and  Christian,  furnished  sufficient  evidence  that 
that  symbolic  action  was  something  more  than  a  mere  idle  form ; 
and,  the  proof  there  adduced,  that,  when  performed  even  by 
Christ  himself,  the  benefits  conferred  did  not  spring  from  any 
"  inherent  virtue  in  his  human  hand,"  but  from  "  the  poicer  of  the 
Deity  mysteriously  united  with  his  humanity :  and  also,  that  the 
apostles  most  emphatically  disclaimed  that  it  was  by  their  "  own 
power  or  holiness,"  but  "  through /azilA  in  the  name  of  Jesus,"  that 
they  dispensed  the  blessings  of  the  gospel  to  the  bodies  and  souls 
of  men,  demonstrated  the  absurdity  of  the  other. 

Claiming,  then,  to  have  pLaced  this  matter  beyond  the  reach  of 
controversy,  three  inferences  follow  ;  namely  : — 

1st.  That  faith  in  Christ,  and  not  any  inherent  efficacy  either  in 
the  apostles  personally  or  by  their  manual  impositions,  is  the 
divinely  appointed  channel  of  communicating  grace  to  the  soul. 
And  hence, 

2d.  That  ordination  by  "  the  laying  on  of  hands,"  does  not  and 
cannot  convey,  either  the  spiritual  qualifications  or  official  func- 
tions, essential  to  a  Christian  minister.     To  which  we  may  add, 

3d.  That  scriptural  precedents  in  these  premises  show,  that 
"  the  laying  on  of  hands"  in  ordination,  though  the  ordinary^ 
yet  cannot  be  regarded  as  the  only,  criterion  of  a  valid  ministry. 

In  what  terms,  then,  we  ask,  can  be  portrayed  a  theory  of  eccle- 
siastical polity,  claiming  powers  based  on  principles  totally  the 
reverse  of  those  here  exhibited,  of  a  class  of  men  who  arrogate 

(1)  Heb.  6  :  1,  a. 
*  Tract  No.  V.,  pp.  .'),  etc.  \  Afelville's  Sermons. 

J  Argument  for  Apostolical  Succession,  p.  8,  etc  ||  See  pp.  142-151. 


244 

to  themselves  a,  "  power  and  holiness,"  and  to  their  ordinations 
by  "  the  laying  on  of  hands,"  an  efficacy  hi  iinjMi'tiiig  hoth  grace 
a/nd  official  functions  to  others  ?  As  we  would  temper  our  indig 
nation  against  such  arrogance,  by  the  plea  of  a  "  reason  to  trust" 
that,  in  many  instances,  such  pretenses  proceed  "  from  involun- 
tary and  unavoidable  ignorance  and  error,"  yet  Ave  appeal,  whether, 
in  the  light  of  the  extracts  above  given,  such  is  not  true  of  the 
theory  of  prelacy,  as  advocated  by  the  several  classes  of  writers 
there  quoted. 

Briefly,  then,  the  opposing  theories — which,  for  our  better  un- 
derstanding of  the  subject,  we  shall  place  in  juxtaposition — when 
analyzed,  are  as  follows : 

THE    ANTI-PRELATICAL    THEORT  THE    PRELATICAL    THEORY 

Makes  ordination  to  consist  in  a  con-  Claims  to  confer  the  Holy  Ghost  in  the 

nection  of  the  Divine  Agent — the  Holy  acts  respectively  oi  consecration,  ordina- 

Spirit — with  the  human,  in  the  dispen-  tinn  and  confirmation,  "  by  virtue  of  that 

sation  of  blessing  to  others  ;  the  latter,  apostolical  imposition  of  hands,  which, 

as  the  mere  giving  of  a  definite  form  to  being  begun  by  the  apostles,  hath  been 

the  infinite   power.      In   other  words,  continued,"  etc.,  "  by  means  of  an  un- 

that   it   denotes   that  the  instrument,  broken  spiritual  descent  of  ordination," 

man,  is  one  with  God,  in  declaring  his  which  "seed  is  in  itself,  after  its  kind," 

purposes  towards  others  on  whom  some  and   indestructible.      In    other  words, 

special   blessing   is  to  descend,  or   by  that  the  diviTic  afflatus,  like  the  electric 

whom  some  special  work  is  to  be  per-  _^uid  through  a  Leyden  jar,  is  communi- 

formed.  cated  in  various  forms,  to  all  whose 

heads  are  placed  under  prelatical  hands. 

And,  in  this  consists  their  "  all  ministerial  powers."  For,  "  to 
the  apostles,"  says  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  Christ  "gave  a  pleni- 
tude of  j)ower^  for  the  whole  commission  was  given  to  them  in  as 
great  and  comprehensive  clauses  as  were  imaginable,  for  by  virtue 
of  it,  they  received  a  power  of  giving  the  Holy  Ghost  in  con- 
firmation, and  of  giving  his  grace  in  the  collation  of  holy  orders," 
etc.,  which  "  power  was  not  temporary,  but  successive  and  per- 
petual," etc.* 

If  not  mistaken,  however,  we  can  account  for  its  origin  in 
another  way.  We  denj^,  either  that  Christ  ever  gave  to  his  apos- 
tles the  power  to  transmit  the  Holy  Ghost  to  others  in  the  form 
and  manner  above  alleged,  or,  that  they  ever  did  thus  transmit  it. 
We  have  proved  from  Scripture,  first,  that  though  the  apostles 
conferred  the  Holy  Ghost  on  others  by  the  laying  on  of  their 
hands,  yet,  having  disclaimed  that  it  was  "  by  virtue"  of  any 
"power  or  holiness,"  either  of  their  own  hands  or  hearts,  that 
they  did  it,  but  hy  faith  in  Christ, f  it  follows,  that  that  symbolical 
action  with  them  can  be  understood  in  no  sense  other  than  that  of 
a  vailing  of  the  bestowment  of  the  Spirit's  gifts  and  graces  under 
a  visible  form.     And  this  we  have  confirmed  by  the  scriptural 

*  Bishop  Taylor,  Episcopacy  Asserted,  p.  46,  etc.,  ed.  O.xford,  1 642. 
t  See  Part  II.,  pp.  144,  145. 


245 

proof,  second,  that  their  power  as  the  instruments  of  conferring  it 
under  that  visible  form,  was  absolutely  incoinmunlcahlc.^'  There 
is  no  recorded  instance  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  bestowment 
of  this  "gift"  on  others,f  by  those  who  received  it  through  "the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  ot  Peter ^  or  John^  or  Paul. 

No.  This  Anglican  and  American  prelatical  pretense  is  of 
JRomish  origin.  By  a  comparison  of  "  the  form  and  manner"  of 
"  ordaining  or  conseci'ating"  bishops  and  priests  in  their  joint  ritu- 
als, with  the  fourth  section  of  the  first  canon  of  the  Tridentine  De- 
crees,:}: the  reader  will  at  once  see  that  the  former  is  but  a  copy  of 
the  latter. 

PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL.  ROMISH. 

Receive  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  office  "  Whoever  shall  affirm  that  the  Holy 

and  work  of  a  bishop  in  the  Church  of  Spirit  is  not  given  by  ordination,  and 

God,  now  committed  to  thee  by  the  im-  therefore,   that   bishops   say    in   vain, 

position  of  our  hands,  in  the  name  of  '  Receive  the  Holij  GhosW  or  that  there- 

the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  by  a  character  is  not  impressed,  etc., 

Holy  Ghost.     Amen."  let  him  be  accursed." 


The  last  remaining  topic  on  our  hands,  that  of  the  alleged  un- 
broken apostolical  succession  in  the  line  of  bishops  by  ordination, 
a  subject  of  paramount  importance  in  these  inquiries,  and  the  basis 
on  which  the  entire  fabric  of  Episcopacy  rests,  will  form  the  mate- 
riel for  the  next  section  of  our  inquiries. 


SECTIOlSr  II. 

Direct  examination  of  the  alleged  fact,  regarding  an  unbroken  apostolical  succession 
from  "the  twelve"  down  to  this  day. — 1.  The  Romish  system.-;— 2.  The  Tracta- 
rian  or  Puseyite  system. — 3.  The  High  Church  system. — 4.  The  so-called 
Evangelical  Low  Church  system. — 5.  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer. — Summary 
of  the  above. — Preliminary. — Three  consecrators  indispensable  to  impart  validity 
to  each  consecutive  link  in  the  alleged  chain. — Canons,  on. — (1.)  Requires  Episco- 
pal baptism. —  (2.)  Ordination  as  deacon  and  priest. — (3.)  Imposition  of  hands  by 
three  bishops. — Apostolical  Canons. — Du  Pin  and  Bishop  Griswold. — The  process 
of  prelatical  ordination  illustrated- — All  who  are  not  so  ordained,  denounced  as 
"gross  impostors." — Bishop  McCoskrey. 

"We  have  said,  that,  though  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  im- 
parted to  others  by  the  imposition  of  apostolic  hands,  yet  that  in 
no  instance  was  the  power  vested  in  them  to  that  end,  imparted  to 
others.     That  "  power,"  we  re-affirm,  was  incommunicable. 

*See  Part  II.,  pp.  145-147. 

t  The  instance  of  the  conferment  of  this  gift  on  Paul  by  Ananias  (see  Acts  9  :  17\ 
cannot,  at  least  on  the  prelatical  hypothesis,  be  considered  as  an  exception,  inasmuch  as 
he  was  not  an  apostle.      (See  vv.  10,  12.) 

t  Chapter  IV.,  the  Ecclesiastical  Hierarchy,  and  Ordination,  Council  ot  Trent. 
Brownlee's  edition,  New  York,  1842,  p.  85. 


246 
Ik. .. 

'■■^  On  the  other  hand,  as  we  have  seen,  prelatists  allege  that  that 
"  power"  apostolic  was  transferred  to  a  race  of  men,  called  their 
"  successors,"  through  the  same  medium,  namely,  by  the  laying  on 
of  hands.     And,  in  proof,  they  assert, 

II. — As    A    FACT,     ITS    UNINTEERUPTED    TRANSMISSION    FROM    THE 

APosTLEs's  TIME  DOWN  TO  THIS  DAY.     In  evidence,  take  the  following 
extracts. 

1. — The  Bomish  system.  "  Only  those  that  can  derive  their 
lineage  from  the  apostles  are  the  heirs  of  the  apostles. — It  is  the 
proper  inheritance  which  they  have  received  from  the  apostles,  and 
the  apostles  from  Christ.     '  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,'  "  etc.* 

2. — The  Oxford  Tractarian  or  Puseyite  system.  "  I  fear  we 
have  neglected  the  real  ground  on  which  our  authority  is  built, 
our  apostolical  descent. — The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  gave  his  Spirit  to 
his  apostles ;  they  in  turn  laid  their  hands  on  those  who  should 
succeed  them ;  and  these  again  on  others  : — and  if  we  trace  back 
the  power  of  ordination  from  hand  to  hand,  of  course  we  shall 
come  to  the  ajjostles  at  last.  We  know  we  do,  as  a  plain  historical 
fact ;  and  therefore  all  we,  who  have  been  ordained  clergy,  in  the 
very  form  of  our  ordination,  acknowledge  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostolical  succession,"f  etc.  "As  to  the  fact  of  the  apostolical 
succession,  that  is,  that  our  present  bishops  are  the  heirs  and  repre- 
sentatives of  the  apostles  by  successive  transmission  of  the  pre- 
rogative of  being  so,  this  is  too  notorious  to  require  proof  Every 
link  in  the  chain  is  known  from  St.  Peter  to  our  present  metropol- 
itan.":];  Froude,  Perceval,  Keble,  Palmer,  and  Newman,  at  a 
meeting  held. at  Ariel  College,  August  4,  1843,  agreed  to  main- 
tain "the  doctrine  of  apostolical  succession  as  a  rule  of  practice, 
— that  is,  that  the  successors  of  the  apostles  are  those  who  are  de- 
scended in  a  direct  line  from  them  by  the  imposition  of  hands ; 
and  that  the  delegates  of  these  are  the  respective  presbyters  whom 
each  has  commissioned,"  etc.§ 

3. — The  High  Church  system.  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor :  The 
apostolical  "  power  was  not  temporary,  but  successive  and  perpetu- 
al^ and  was  intended  to  be  an  ordinary  office  in  the  Church,  so  that 
the  successors  of  the  apostles  had  the  same  right  and  institution 
that  the  apostles  had,  and  though  the  personal  mission  [i.e.,  of 
their  successors]  was  not  immediate,  as  of  the  apostles  it  was,  yet 
the  commission  and  institution  of  the  function  was  all  one,"  etc. 
Dr.  Chapman  :    "  The  principle  for  which  we  contend,  necessarily 

*  Grounds  of  Catholic  Doctrine,  p.  17. 
t  Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  1.,  pp.  2,  3. 
j  Tracts,  etc.,  No.  VII.,  p.  2. 
\  Perceval's  Collection  of  Papers,  p.  12. 


247 

demands  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  Episcopal  ordination  from 
the  apostles's  times  down  to  our  own." — "  Those  whom  we  are  ac- 
customed to  honor  as  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  always  preserved 
with  the  greatest  care  the  catalogues  of  bishops  in  their  respective 
Sees  from  the  beginning."*  Bishop  Beveridge :  "  The  apostoli- 
cal line  hath  through  all  ages  been  preserved  entire,  there  having 
been  a  constant  succession  of  bishops  in  it  [the  Church],  as  were 
truly  and  properly  successors  to  the  apostles,  by  virtue  of  that 
apostolical  imposition  of  hands,  which,  being  begun  by  the  apostles, 
hath  been  continued  from  one  to  another,  enicr  stnce  that  time 
down  to  oursr\  Bishop  Hobart:  "The  constitution  of  the  min- 
istry in  that  form  in  which  the  High  Churchman  advocates  it,  sup- 
poses the  derivation  of  the  authority  to  minister  in  holy  things 
from  the  only  source  of  power  in  the  Christian  Church,  its  Divine 
Head  ; — which  authority  flows  from  its  Divine  Source,  through  the 
channels  oiXk^e,  first  of  the  three  orders  of  the  ministry  [bishops] 
which  from  the  apostles'' s  time  have  been  in  the  Christian  Church."^ 

4. — The  Low  Church  sj^stem.  Bishop  Griswold :  Christ 
promised  that  "  there  should  be  continued  an  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion of  such  officers  [apostolic]  in  this  Church,  endowed  with  these 
ecclesiastical  powers,"  etc.  "  Ever  since  the  Ajjostlcs's  days^  none 
but  such., ..are  called  Bishops."§  The  Rev.  Dr.  Tyng  :  The  oppo- 
sition from  "  Protestant  denominations"  to  Episcopacy  "  will  grant 
peace  upon  no  terms,  other  than  the  entire  renunciation  of  the 
claims  which  we  make  to  a  scriptural  ministry,  and  of  our  derived 
right  thereto,  through  an  appointed  succession  from  the  apostles. 
This  is  a  jpoint  which  we  can  never  with  a  good  conscience  yield. ''"'l 
Bishop  Burgess,  of  Maine  :  "  The  first  bishops  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  were  ordained  or  conse- 
crated as  bishops  by  the  bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  of  England  or  Scotland.  These  had  been  con- 
secrated by  bishops  before  them,  who  had  also  been  consecrated 
by  others,  hach  to  the  times  of  the  aj>ostlesy*li  Bishop  Mcllvaine, 
having  referred  "  us  to  the  analogy  between  the  new  creation  and 
the  old,  in  regard  to  origin  and  succession,"  and  that  vegetables 
and  man,  though  at  first  produced  by  miracle,  were  continued  b}^ 
ordinary  laws,  each  having  "  seed  in  itself  after  his  kind,"  argues 
thus  :  "I  know  not  that  a  man,  or  an  herb,  is  any  the  less  a  man, 
or  an  herb,  or  any  the  less  descended  from  the  miraculous  begin- 
nings of  creation,  because  the  laws  of  growth  were  but  ordinary, 
and  the  intermediate  agency  of  production  was  but  man.  And  so 
I  know  not,"  he  adds,   "that  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  is  any  the 

*  Chapman's  Sermons  on  the  Church,  pp.  100,  101. 

t  Bishop  Beveridge's  Sermons  on  the  Church,  p.  26. 

j  High  Churchman  Vindicated  :  a  Charge,  p.  11.  1826. 

§  Bishop  Griswold  on  Apostolic  Succession,  Tract  No.  I.,  pp.  7,  8,  9,  etc. 

II  A  Plea  for  Union,  a  Sermon,  etc.     1844.     pp.  16,  17. 

t  "  A  Stranger  in  the  Church."'     A  Tract.     By  Bishop  Burgess.     1848.     p.  8. 


w 


248 


less  a  successor  of  the  apostles,  because,  instead  of  receiving  liis 
authority,  like  them,  immediately  from  Christ,  it  has  come  to  him 
by  the  intermediate  communication    OF  A  chain  fastened,  at 

ITS  BEGINNING,  UPON  THE  THRONE  OF  GOD,    AND   PRESERVED 

AS  INVIOLATE  AS  THE  LINE  OF  TUE  DESCENT  OF 
ADAM,  OR  THE  SUCCESSION  OF  SEEDTIME  AND  HAR- 
VEST, OF  DAY  AND  NIGHT,  OF  SUMMER  AND  WIN- 
TER"!— "Its  seed  is  in  itself,  after  its  kind,"  and,  at 

EVERY  STEP  OF  THE  SUCCESSION  IT  IS  PKECISELY  THE  SAME  MINISTRY 
AND  JUST  AS  MUCH  OF  GoD,  SANCTIONED  BY    HIS   AUTHORITY   AND   SUS- 

t/^ined  by  his  POWER,  AS  IF  IT  HAD  BEEN  RECEIVED 
FROM  THE  LAYING  ON  OF  THE  HANDS  OF  CHRIST 
HIMSELF"!*  As  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hook,  the  distinguished  Vicar 
of  Leeds,  England,  is  thought  by  some  to  have  considerably 
lowered  his  former  tone  of  churchmanship,  we  will  present  the 
reader  in  this  place  with  the  following  specimen  from  his  pen  : 
"  The  prelates,  who  at  this  time  rule  the  churches  of  these  realms, 
were  validly  ordained  by  others,  who,  by  means  of  an  unbroken 
spiritual  descent  of  ordination,  derived  their  mission  from  the 
apostles  and  from  our  Lord.  This  continued  descent  is  evident  to 
every  one  who  chooses  to  investigate  it.  Let  him  read  the  cata- 
logues of  our  bishops  ascending  up  to  the  most  remote  periods. 
Our  ordinations  descend  in  a  direct  unbroken  line  from  Peter  and 
Paul,  the  apostles  of  the  circumcision  and  the  Gentiles.  These 
great  apostles  successively  ordained  Linus,  Cletus,  and  Clement, 
Bishops  of  Rome  ;  and  the  apostolic  succession  was  regularly  con 
tinned  from  them  [i.e.,  the  "  Bishoj)s  of  Rome^''  which,  please 
mark]  to  Celestine,  Gregory,  and  Vitalianus,  who  ordained  Patrick 
bishop  of  the  Irish,  and  Augustine  and  Theodore  for  the  English. 
And  from  those  times,  an  uninterru^jted  series  of  valid  ordinations 
has  carried  down  the  apostolical  succession  in  our  churches  to  the 
present  day.  There  is  7iot  a  bishop,  priest  or  deacon,  among  us, 
who  cannot,  IF  HE  PLEASE,  ti'ace  his  own  spiritual  descent 
from  ST.  PETER  and  ST.  PAUL."t 

"We  will  conclude  these  extracts  with  the  following. 

5.  From  "  tlte  Preface^''  to  the  "Form  and  Manner  of  Making, 
Ordaining  and  Consecrating  Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons"  in  the 
Anglican  and  American  Book  of  Common  Prayer :  "  It  is  evi- 
dent unto  all  men,  diligentl}^  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient 
authors,  that,  from  the  Ajjostles's  times,  there  have  been  these  orders 
of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church :   bishops,  priests,   and  deacons  ; 

*  Argument  for  the  Apostolic  Succession,  by  the  Right  Rev.  Charles  P.  Mcllvaine, 
Bishopof  the  Diocese  of  Ohio,  1813.  For  the  benefit  and  consolation  of  the  "illegiti- 
mate brood  of  dissent,"  this  very  evangelical  bishop,  in  the  last  three  lines  and  a  half  of 
his  "argument"  says: — "  We  have  taken  good  care,  while  speaking  the  doctrine  of  our 
Church,  with  all  plainness,  to  avoid  all  reflections  upon  those  parts  of  Protestant  Chris- 
tendom.' with  which,  on  this  head,  we  are  sorry  to  differ."    Q.uite  cool,  truly. 

t  Two  Sermons  on  the  Church  aaJ  the  Establishment,  pp.  7,  8. 


249 

which  offices  were  evermore  held  in  such  reverend  estimation, 
that  no  man  might  presume  to  execute  any  of  them^  except  he  were 
first  called,  tried,  examined,  and  known  to  have  such  qualities  as 
are  requisite  for  the  same ;  and  also  by  public  prayer,  with  im- 
position of  hands,  were  approved  or  admitted  thereto  by  lawful 
authoriti/,'^  accompanied  with  "  EpisGOjxd  consecration  or  ordi- 
nation." 

Briefly,  tlien,  of  the  above  extracts,  this  is  the  sum :  Prelacy, 
it  is  declared,  "  necessarily  demands  an  uninterrupted  succession 
of  Episcopal  ordination  from  the  apostles's  times  to  our  own." — 
(Dr.  Chapman.)  "  As  the  heirs  of  the  apostles"  (Romanists), 
"every  link  in  the  chain  is  known  from  St.  Peter," 'etc. — (Tract- 
arians.)  "  It  is  a  chain  fastened,  at  its  beginning,  upon  the  throne 
of  God,  and  preserved  as  inviolate  as  the  line  of  the  descent  of 
Adam,  or  the  succession  of  day  and  night,  of  seedtime  and 
harvest,  of  summer  and  winter,"  etc. — (Bishop  Mcllvaine.)  And 
that,  because  Christ  promised  that  "  there  should  be  an  uninter- 
rupted succession  of  the  office,"  etc. — (Bishop  Griswold)  ;  in  evi- 
dence of  which  the  "  fathers  of  the  Church"  have  "always  pre- 
served with  the  greatest  care  the  catalogues  of  bishops,"  etc.— 
(Dr.  Chapman.)  This  is  "  a  plain  historical  fact,"  "too  notorious 
to  require  proof  "—(Tractarians.)  "  It  is  evident  unto  all  men," 
etc. — (Dr.  Hook  and  the  Prayer  Book.)  So  that  "  there  is  not  a 
bishop,  priest,  or  deacon"  in  the  chain,  "  who  cannot,  if  he  please, 
trace  his  own  spiritual  descent  from  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul." — (Dr. 
Hook.)  "  And  this,"  says  Dr.  Tyng,  "  is  a  point  which  we  can 
never,  with  a  good  conscience,  yield." 

Before  we  pass  to  a  scriptural  and  historical  examination  of  the 
above  claims,  however,  there  is  one  other  point,  which,  on  prelati- 
cal  principles,  is  fundamental  to  their  theory.  It  is  this:  The 
designation  of  each  link  in  the  chain^  to  his  office^  hy  three  consecrators, 
each  link  having  previously  received  the  grace  of  a  canonical  baptism* 
and  of  ordination  to  the  Deaconaie  and  Presbyterate. 

Canon  I.  On  Episcopal  Baptism.  "  The  want  of  episcopal  bap- 
tism," that  is,  to  the  person  ordained  or  consecrated,  "is  an  essen- 
tial defect." 

Canon  II.  "  That  ordination  has  been  judged  invalid  where  the 
person  ordained  bishop  had  not  been  previously  ordained  a  deacon 
and  a  priest ;  that  is,  ordination  per  saltum  does  not  convey  the 
grace."f 

Canon  III.  To  constitute  a  valid  consecration,  the  imposition  of 
hands  of  at  least  three  bishops  is  indispensable. 

This  last  canon  is  founded  on  what  is  alleged  to  be  the  first  of 

*  It  is  on  this  ground  that  consistent  prelatists  deny  the  validity  of  baptism  as  ad- 
ministered by  Presbyterian  hands,  and  of  which,  as  I  have  shown,  the  Rev.  Stephen 
H.  Tyng,  D.D.,  is  one.     Why,  even   the  RomanisLs  admit  the   validity  of  lay-baptism  ! 

t  See  Dr.  Field,  as  quoted  in  Smith's  Lectures,  p.  116  ;  and  Bingham's  Antiq.,  B.  II., 
sec.  12.     (Duffield  on  Episcopacy,  p.  257.) 


250 

the  "  canons"  called  "  apostolical."     In  other  words,  that  it  was 
enacted  by  the  apostles  themselves  ! 

Now,  on  this  last  point,  as  that  which  principally  concerns  us, 
it  is  worthy  of  special  note,  that  Protestant  prelatists  seem  more 
tenacious  than  even  Romanists  themselves  The  learned  Du  Pin, 
of  standard  authority  in  the  Romish  communion,  positively  denies 
that  these  canons  originated  with  the  aj)ostles,  but  ascribes  them 
to  a  much  later  period,  the  whole  number  (eighty-five  in  all)  having 
been  enacted  between  the  close  of  the  second  and  the  opening  of 
the  fourth  centuries.*  But,  in  opposition  to  this,  Bishop  Griswold, 
treating  of  the  apostolic  office  as  applicable  to  that  age,  says : 
"  One  of  the  first,  or  highest  order,  was  not  ordained  by  a  single 
person  ;  several  holding  the  apostolic  office  united  in  giving  such 
orders."  And  again :  "  Several  bishops  unite  in  ordaining  a  bishop. 
Among  us  there  must  he  at  least  three  bishops  to  ordain  one  to  the 
same  office."  And  "  thus,"  he  adds,  "  you  will  see  that  we  strictly 
conform  to  apostolic  usage. "f 

"  One  bishop,"  then,  "  lacks  power,  it  would  seem,  to  communi- 
cate the  apostolic  virtue.  To  do  the  thing  unexceptionably,  three 
are  required,  and  fewer  than  two  cannot  transmit  it  at  all.  It  is  a 
law  of  the  electric  fluid,  that  if  a  single  Ley  den  jar  be  well  charged, 
it  yields  a  smart  shock.  Double  the  number  of  jars,  and  connect 
them,  and  the  shock  is  doubled.  Every  additional  jar  gives  ad- 
ditional strength  to  the  shock,  until  at  length,  by  the  sheer  force 
of  numbers,  we  construct  a  batterj'-  powerful  enough  to  explode  gun- 
powder, or  to  light  tapers  tipped  with  sulphur.  But  the  apostolical 
fluid  is  regulated  by  other  laws.  A  single  jar,  let  it  be  charged  as  it 
may,  gives  no  shock  whatever;  set  beside  it  a  second  jar,  and 
there  ensues  what  may  be  regarded  a  shock  in  cases  of  dire  neces- 
sity, not  otherwise.  Add  yet  a  third,  and  the  battery  is  complete. 
The  fluid  glances  nimbly  along,  and  ignites  tapers  at  the  noon- 
day altar.":}: 

We  repeat :  Consecration  by  THREE  BISHOPS  an  indispens- 
able condition  of  the  transference,  to  another,  of  a  valid  claim  to 
the  apostleship!     All  others,  not  so  consecrated  or  ordained,  are 

"  GROSS  IMPOSTORS." 

*  Du  Pin's  New  EcclesiasD'cal  History,  pp.  13,  14.     Fol.,  London,  1693. 
t  Bishop  Griswold  on  Apostolic  Succession.     Tract  No.  I.,  p.  9. 
X  The  Witness,  Edinburgh,  April  27,  1842. 


251 


SECTION   m. 

Prelacy,  as  claiming  to  be  the  antitype  of  the  Aaronic  orders,  must  hold  its  analogy  to 
the  mode  of  its  transmission  and  perpetuity. — The  two  modes  compared. — Query. 
Did  Christ  impose  his  hands  on  the  twelve  ? — Proof  that  he  did  not. — Import  of 
the  terra  KaBiarnfi. — Archbishop  Potter  on. — Absurdity  of  the  prelatical  hypo- 
thesis. 

Let  US  examine  this  subject  of  three  consecrators  as  essential  to 
a  valid  ministry,  as  above  alleged,  in  the  light  of  "  Holy  Scripture." 
The  prelatical  argument  for  the  Christian  ministry  as  alleged  to  be 
founded  in  its  antitypal  relation  to  the  Aaronic  orders^  requires,  of 
course,  that  the  analogy  holds  good  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  its 
transmission  and  perpetuity.  "  No  mem  taketh  this  honor  unto  him- 
self^ hut  he  that  is  called  of  God^  AS  was  Aaron.'"  We  will  com- 
pare the  two,  thus : 

THE   TYPE.  THE   ALLEGED     ANTITYPE. 

1.  Aaron  was  consecrated,  not  by  a  1.  Prelacy  requires  the  consecration 
high  priest,  but  by  Moses,  the  Jewish  of  apostles  vel  bishops,  hy  apostles,  and 
lawgiver. — (Lev.  8  :  1-12.)  none  others. 

2.  Aaron  was  consecrated  by  a  single  2.  Prelatists  say,  "  Among  us  there 
agent,  Moses. — (Ibid.)  must  be  at  least  three  bishops  to  ordain 

one  to  the  same  office." 

3.  Levitical  Priests  and  Levites,  by  3.  Prelatical  Priests  and  Deacons,  by 
the  same. — (Lev.  8  :  13.  the  Bishops  and  the  Priests  present,  etc. 

(See  Rubric.) 

4.  In  Aaron's  consecration  there  was  4.  No  man  may  "  presume  to  execute" 
no  laying  on  of  hands  employed. — (Com-  the  offices  of  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon, 
pare  Lev.  8  :  1-12 ;  No.  20  :  23-29.)         "  except    he    were    first    called,"  etc., 

'■'■with  imposition  of  hands,'^  etc. — (See 
Preface  to  Form.) 

So  much,  then,  as  to  a  correspondence  between  the  Type  and  the 
Antitype. 

Pass  we  on  now  to  the  New  Testament.  And,  first.  As  to  the 
mode  of  designation  of  the  apostles  to  their  office,  we  ask :  Did 
Christ  impose  hands  on  them  f  Let  us  see.  The  term  "  ordained" 
is  used  to  denote  the  same  act  as  the  term  "  chose."^  'The  original 
word,  KaOiciirril^  in  the  New  Testament,  in  two  instances  is  ren- 
dered "  ordain,"  and  in  about  twenty,  "  ordained."  In  two  of  the 
above  instances  it  refers  to  the  ordination  of  the  apostles  /^  and  in 
five  instances,  to  the  ordination  of  others.*  But  in  neither  case  is 
there  the  least  allusion  made  to  the  imposition  of  hands  as  tJie 
mode  of  ordination.  The  term  simply  imports,  to  constitute,  ap- 
point, ordain  to  an  office,  set  over,  establish,  regulate,*  etc.,  but 
does  not  define  the  mode  of  doing  either.     In  reply  then  to  the 

(1)  Hcb.  5  :  4.  (2)  Compare  Mark  3  :  14,  In,  with  Luke  6  :  1.3.  (3)  Mark  3  :  14,  15  ;  John  15  :  16. 
(4)  Heb.  6:1;  Acts  1  :  22  ;  1  Tim.  2:7;  .-Vets  14  :  23  ;  Titus  1  :  5. 

*  See  Parkhurst's  Greek  Lexicon,  and  Wright's  Greek  and  English  do.,  on  the  word, 


252 

above  question,  we  shall  let  one  speak,  whom  Protestant  prelatists 
regard  as  of  the  highest  standard  authority.  Archbishop  Potter, 
in  treating  of  this  subject,  says  :  "  The  rite  of  imposing  hands, 
whereby  other  ministers  were  ordained,  was  never  used  in  mak- 
ing apostles.  It  was  a  distinguishing  part  of  their  character,  that 
they  were  immediately  called  and  ordained  by  Christ  himself, 
who  gave  them  the  Holy  Ghost  by  breathing  on  them  ;  but  neither 
he  nor  any  other  is  ever  said  to  lay  hands  on  them."* 

We  must  here  again  reiterate.  On  the  prelatical  hypothesis  of 
ordination  by  "  the  laying  on  of  hands,"  as  the  ONLY  mode  of 
transmitting  validly  the  functions  apostolic,  agreeably  to  the  alleged 
commission,  "as  my  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you;" 
the  FatJier  must  have  imposed  hands  on  the  head  of  his  Son ; 
Christ  his,  on  the  heads  of  his  apostles ;  the  Apostles  theirs,  on  the 
heads  of  their  successors ;  and  their  successors  theirs,  on  the  heads 
of,  etc.,  down  to  this  day.  Otherwise,  how  could  the  "  chain,"  as 
Bishop  Mcllvaine  affirms,  be  "  fastened,  at  its  beginning,  upon  the 
throne  of  God,  and  preserved  as  inviolate  as  the  line  of  the  descent 
of  Adam,"  etc.?f  Accordingly,  the  New  Testament  import  of  the 
term,  together  with  the  authority  of  Archbishop  Potter  in  support 
of  our  version  of  it  as  respects  the  ordination  of  the  apostles  by 
our  Lord,  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  the  advocates  of  the 
dogma  of  an  unbroken  apostolical  succession  persist  in  placing  it 
on  the  ground  of  a  seminal  transmission  of  the  "  grace'"'  of  "  holy 
orders^''  through  the  ^procreating  process  of  manual  irnpositions. 
A  valid  Christian  ministry  perishes,  except  as  preserved  through 
this  all-potent  channel !  Ordination  by  "  the  laying  on  of  hands," 
is  to  Episcopacy  what  life  is  to  the  body !  Nor,  we  add,  must  we 
overlook  the  alleged  condition  fundamental  to  its  valid  transmis- 
sion— the  agency  of  three  consecrators  ! 

*  Potter  on  Church  Government,  p.  264. 

t  The  reader  is  desired  particularly  to  keep  this  fact  in  view,  as  on  it  depends  the  en- 
tire validity  of  their  alleged  claim  to  the  possession  of  the  only  true  ministry  and  sacra- 
ments of  the  Church,  by  an  unbroken  succession,  etc. 


253 


SECTION   IV. 

The  question  of  genealogy,  as  involved  in  the  theory  of  prelacy. — The  term  defined. — 
Applied,  1.  To  Christ, — 2.  To  the  Jewish  commonwealth. — 3.  To  the  Leviticai 
priesthood. — Illustrations  of  the  exactness  of  their  tabular  views. — High  prelatical 
claims  of,  in  support  of  the  alleged  succession. — Preliminaries  to  a  further  exami- 
nation of — The  law  of  analogy  requires  a  correspondence  between  the  Christian 
ministry  and  its  alleged  Aaronic  "  model"  in  the  articles  of,  1st.  Their  respective 
vocations. — 2d.  Their  limits  or  spheres  of  operation. — 3d.  Prelatical  dilemma. — 
The  Christian  Church  built,  not  on  apostles,  etc.,  but  on  priests. — 4tb.  Another. — 
Twelve  foundation  stones. — Twelve  chains. — Proof,  that  such  an  analogous  genea- 
logical succession  formed  no  part  of  the  apostles's  mission. — Inference. 

The  dogma  of  apostolical  succession,  therefore,  involves  the 
question  of  genealogy. 

Genealogy  is  simply  the  record  of  one's  descent.  On  this  sub- 
ject, we  remark,  that  it  evidently  formed  no  part  of  the  divine 
economy  that  every  link  in  the  chain  of  each  individual  from 
Adam  should  have  been  preserved  whole  and  entire.  Even  the 
Anglican  regal  succession  is  traceable  no  higher  than  to  the  Nor- 
man or  Saxon  races.  Indeed,  two  such  chains  only  have  been 
preserved  to  us,  that  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  and  that  of  God's 
ancient  covenant  people,  the  Jews.  A  third,  confined  to  a  shorter 
period,  is  that  of  the  Leviticai  priesthood  as  continued  in  the  line 
of  Aaron.  Nor,  be  it  observed,  are  these  genealogical  records  to 
be  looked  upon  as  unmeaning  and  unimportant  appendages  to  the 
sacred  canon. 

1.  That  of  our  hlessed  Lord  was  designed  to  authenticate  his 
claims  as  the  true  Messiah.  And  hence,  its  twofold  end.  First, 
it  sets  forth  Christ  as  "  the  minister  of  the  circumcision  for  the 
truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the  promises  made  unto  the  fathers,"  that, 
as  the  "  seed"  of  Abraham  and  "  the  son  of  David,"  he  "  should 
sit  on  his  throne,"  swaying  the  scepter  of  a  finally  triumphant 
and  ever  Mddening  empire.  And  second,  it  exhibits  to  us  Christ 
as  "  the  second  Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven,"  as  "  head  over  all 
things"  to  his  redeemed  "  body,  the  Church,"  and  shows  us  that, 
while  to  her  his  "  name  is  above  every  name,"  the  names  of  her 
members  as  gathered  out  of  all  nations  are  so  dear  to  him,  that  he 
registers  them  in  the  book  of  his  genealogy — "  The  Book  of 
Life,"  so  that,  "  when  he  shall  appear  the  second  time,"  to  com- 
plete their  salvation,  presenting  them  before  the  eternal  throne,  he 
will  say,  "Behold,  I,  and  the  children  whom  thou,"  father,  "hast 
given  me  !"     Lord,  is  my  name  written  in  that  Book  of  Life? 

2.  That  of  the  great  Jewish  co'tntnonwealth.  Its  design  was, 
to  answer  the  purpose  of  a  title-deed  of  that  jDortion  of  the 
promised  land  allotted  to  each  tribe  and  family,  as  also  to  secure 
to  them  their  religious  and  political  immunities,  on  which  account, 


254 

to  preserve  such  a  table,  was  an  obligation  imposed  on  them  by 
the  laws  of  the  Theocracy.  And,  furthermore,  considered  as  that 
miraculously  preserved  race  of  whom  it  was  predicted,  "  Lo,  the 
people  shall  dwell  alone,  and  shall  not  be  reckoned  among  the  na- 
tions ;"'  this,  their  genealogical  title-deed,  is  destined  ere  long  to 
evidence  to  the  world  that  they  are  the  only  rightful  heirs  appa- 
rent to  that  territory  known  in  holy  writ  under  the  -designation  of 
"  Canaan,"  "  the  glory  of  all  lands.'" 

3.  The  record  of  the  Levitical  priesthood.  That  order 
was  appointed,  that  they  might  "  minister  to  the  Lord  in  the 
priest's  office,"  as  "  an  everlasting  priesthood  throughout  their 
generations.'"  "  No  man,"  therefore,  might  assume  it,  but  he  that 
should  be  "  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron,"*  and  that,  for  the  reason 
that  it  adumbrated  the  great  antitypal  sacrifice  for  sin,  which,  "  in 
the  fullness  of  time"  was  to  be  offered  up  once  for  all,  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  the  purposes  for  which  these  genea- 
logical records  were  kept,  could  only  be  attained  hy  their  accuracy 
and  completeness.  That  relating  to  Christ,  is  authenticated  in  the 
third  chapter  of  Luke,  23d  and  38th  verses  inclusive,  furnishing 
every  link  through  a  long  period  of  over  four  thousand  years. 
That  connected  with  the  Jews,  every  individual  of  that  vast  com- 
monwealth could  trace  upwards  the  distinct  line  of  his  ancestry  to 
Jacob,  Isaac  and  Abraham,  and  through  them,  still  higher,  to 
Noah,  and  to  Adam.  And,  in  regard  to  the  Levitical  priesthood, 
two  miracles  were  wrought  in  attestation  of  its  sacredness  and  in- 
violability as  a  positive  institution  of  God — the  destruction  of  Ko- 
rah  and  his  company  for  their  schismatical  attempt  to  invade  it; 
and  the  budding,  blossoming,  and  almond-bearing  of  Aaron's  rod 
(among  the  twelve  rods  which  God  commanded  to  be  laid  up  before 
the  Ark,  bearing  the  names  of  each  tribe)  in  a  single  night,  as  a 
standing  memorial  or  token  against  the  rebels. 

Nor  should  we  overlook  another  most  important  fact  in  this  con- 
nection, as  illustrative  of  the  exactness  with  which  the  sacerdotal 
catalogue  was  preserved,  and  the  consequence  attendant  u])on  the 
smallest  defect  in  the  title  of  any  claimants  to  the  office.  The  case 
alluded  to  is  the  following,  as  recorded  by  Ezra.  "  And  of  the 
children  of  the  priests :  the  children  of  Hebaiah,  the  children  of 
Koz,  the  children  of  Barzillai  (which  took  a  wife  of  the  daughters 
of  Barzillai  the  Gileadite,  and  was  called  after  their  name) :  these 
sought  their  register  among  those  that  were  reckoned  hy  genealogy^ 
but  they  were  not  found :  therefore  were  they,  as  polluted,  put 
from  the  priesthood.''^  Nor  is  it  a  little  remarkable,  that  neither 
the  plea  of  their  betrayal  into  the  neglect  of  preserving  their  fami- 
ly register  occasioned  by  their  captivity  in  Babylon,  nor  the  tra- 
ditional evidence  at  hand  of  their  legitimate  title  thereto,  could 
avert  their  ejectment  from  the  priesthood ! 

(1)  Numb.  23  :  9.     (2)  Ezek.  20  :  6.    (3)  Exod.  18  : 1  ;  U  :  13  ;  1  Chron.  23  and  24.     (4)  Heb.  8  :  4. 


255 

!From  the  important  bearing  of  this  matter  on  the  subject  in 
hand,  we  shall  insert  in  this  place  several  specimens  illustrative 
of  the  hdelity,  accuracy,  and  completeness  of  the  genealogical  re- 
cords alluded  to  above. 


CHRIST  from  ADAM. 

Luke  3  : 

23- 

38. 

Christ, 

the  son  of 

Joseph, 

which  was         " 

Heli, 

(t 

11 

Maithat, 

(( 

1 

Levi, 

(I 

(( 

Melchi, 

(1 

C( 

Janna, 

« 

1( 

Joseph, 

1! 

u 

Maitathiusy 

I( 

11 

Amos, 

(I 

(( 

Naum, 

(i 

«( 

Esli, 

C( 

(( 

Nagge, 

etc.,  etc.. 

,  etc 

(( 

(( 

Adam, 

11 

(( 

God. 

IT. 

THE  TRIBES  and  their  families. 
Numbers  26. 

Jacob  or  Israel. 

Reuben,  the  eldest  son  of  Israel :  The 
children  of  Reuben,  Hanoch,  of  whom 
Cometh  the  family  of  the  Hano- 
chites ;  of  Pallu,  the  family  of  Pal- 
luites  ;  of  Hezron,  the  family  of  the 
Hezronites ;  of  Carmi,  the  family  of 
the  Carmi tes,  etc. 
These  are  the  families  of  the  Reu- 

benites,  etc. 

And  so  of  each  of  the  other  tribes. 


III. 

THE     HIGH     priesthood.* 

1  Chronicles  6  :  49. 

1.  Aaron,  Lev.  8  :  1-12,  and  his  son. 

2.  Eleazar,  Numb.  20  :  23-29,      " 

3.  Phirwhas,  indg.  20:  28, 

4.  Abishua,  1  Chron.  6  :  50,         " 


5.  Bukki, 

6.  Uzzi, 

7.  Zerahiah, 

8.  Meraioth, 

9.  Amariah, 
10.  Ahiiuh, 

etc.,  etc.,  etc. 


51, 


52, 


IV. 

THE  PRIESTS's  COURSES.f 

1  Chronicles  24  :  1. 


1.  Jehoiarib, 

2.  Jedaiah, 

3.  Harivi, 

4.  Seorim, 

5.  Malchijah, 

6.  Mijamin, 

7.  Hakkoz, 

8.  Abijdh, 

9.  Jeshua, 
10.  Shecaniah, 

etc.,  etc.,  etc. 


1   Chron.   24  :  7 

u  u 

"  "      8 

(1  (( 

"  "      9 

I'.  u 

"     10 

"      11 


*  The  High  Priesthood  was  continued  to  the  house  of  Eleazar  till  the  time  of  Uzzi, 
when  Eli,  the  first  in  the  line  of  the  house  of  Ithamar,  assumed  it.  Here  it  continued 
through  Xhitub,  Ahiah,  Ahimelech,  and  Abiathar,  (1  Sam.  ]  :  9  ;  22  :  11 ;  14  :  3  ;  22  : 
11  ;  1  Kings  2  :  26),  to  Zadok,  of  the  house  of  Eleazar,  to  whom  the  priesthood  was 
restored  by  Solomon,  in  accordance  with  a  promise  made  to  Phinehas.  Eleazar's  son,  of 
a  perpetual  priesthood,  for  his  ardent  zeal  manifested  in  the  punishment  of  the  offenders 
in  the  matter  of  Peor.  (See  Numb.  2-5.)  We  add  further,  that  from  Zadok  the  priest- 
hood was  continued  in  a  direct  line  to  Onias  or  Maiielaus,  after  whose  death  the  lineal 
descent  was  disregarded  ;  appointments  to  the  office  of  High  Priest  fell  into  the  hands 
of  the  ruling  faction,  and  thereby  lost  the  sacred  character  by  which  it  had  been  distin- 
guished, and  wa.s  finally  converted  into  a  mere  engine  of  State. 

1  This  register  exhibits  the  names  of  those  persons  to  whom  were  assigned  the  priest's 
office  "  under  Aaron  their  father,  as  the  Lord  God  had  commanded  him.''  (1  Chron.  24  : 
19.)  They  descended  promiscuously  from  the  families  of  Eleazar  and  Ithamar, 
(1  Chron.  24  :  -3-6,)  in  the  order  of  twenty-four  courses.  (1  Chron.  24  :  7-18.)  Zacha- 
eias,  mentioned  Luke  1  :  5,  was  of  the  course  of  Abiah. 


256 

In  tbcso  examples  of  genealogical  records,  nothing  can  be  more 
explicit,  straightforward,  and  clear.  And,  we  submit,  whether, 
from  the  claims  of  prelatists  to  equal  fidelity,  accuracy,  and  com- 
pleteness iu  behalf  of  their  ecclesiastical  genealogy,  their  alleged 
records  should  not  be  equally  explicit,  straightforward,  and  clear. 
They  assure  us  that  "  those  whom  they  are  accustomed  to  honor 
as  the  fathers  of  the  Church,  always  preser\^ed  with  the  greatest 
care  the  catalogues  of  bishops  in  their  respective  Sees  from,  the 
he^inninq  ;^'' — (Chapman):  that  the  "  chain,  festenrd,  at  its  hegin- 
mng^  upon  the  throne  of  God,"  has  been  "  preserved  as  inviolate 
as  the  line  of  the  descent  of  {e.g.^  the  Son  of  God  from)  Adam ;" 
— (Bishop  McTlvaine) :  and  hence,  "  that  there  is  not  a  bishop, 
priest,  or  deacon  among  them,  who  cannot,  if  Tie  please,  trace  his 
own  spiritual  descent  from  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul." — (Dr.  Hook). 
Now,  nothing,  surely,  can  exceed  the  tone  of  confidence  in  which 
these  statements  are  put  forth :  and,  accomj)anied  as  thc}^  are,  with 
the  authority  of  names  ranking  high  in  the  theological  firmament 
of  both  hemispheres,  we  are  not  surprised  at  their  influence  in  pre- 
disposing the  mind  to  pay  to  them  the  homage  of  an  implicit  faith. 
Preferring,  however,  an  examination  of  the  "  kegister,"  in  which 
these  prelates  allege  that  they  have  "  always"  been  "  reckoned  by 
genealogy"  "  with  the  greatest  care,"  for  ourselves,  after  one  or  two 
preliminaries,  we  shall  proceed  to  subject  it  to  the  double  ordeal  of 
"  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,"  etc.,  in  its  application  to 
the  claims  of  "  the  Church,"  Romish  and  Anglican. 

We  remark,  then, — 

That  the  theory  of  an  ecclesiastical  genealogy  on  the  prelatical 
hypothesis,  affirming,  as  it  does,  that  the  office  and  functions  of 
the  High  Priesthood  of  Christ,  which  had  for  its  "  model"  the 
Aaronic  orders,  was  transferred  by  him  to  his  apostles,  and  by 
them  to  their  successors,  involves  also  the  necessity  of  an  analogy 
hetween  tlie  Christian  ministry  and  that  ^'' model,''''  as  it  regards 
their  respective  vocations  and  limits.  If  Christ,  as  the  antitype,  of 
the  Aaronic  priesthood,  instituted  the  Christian  ministry  after  the 
"  model"  of  that  priesthood,  it  follows,  that  there  must  have  been 
a  correspondence  between  them, 

1,  In  the  article  of  their  respective  vocations.  But,  how  dis- 
similar!  The  origin  of  the  Levitical  priesthood,  and  of  Aaron's 
call  thereto  as  the  first  of  the  order,  transpired  under  circumstances 
of  peculiar  interest  and  solemnity.  It  involved  the  creation  of  a 
new  office  in  the  Church  of  God,  not  only,  but  that  office  Avas  to 
supersede  the  long  established  rites  of  patriarchism.  It  was  to  be 
to  the  Jews  as  a  nation,  what  that  had  been  to  the  families  of  the 
preceding  age.  And,  with  its  multitudinous  rites  and  ceremonies, 
it  was  to  be  perpetuated  by  lineal  descent  from  Aaron. 

But,  the  ministry  of  Christ  formed  also  the  basis  of  a  new  econo- 
my /  and  as  such,  like  that  which  had  preceded  it,  was  attested  by 
miracle,  in  proof,  that  Christ  took  not  the  honor  unto  himself,  but 


257 

was  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron ;'  not,  be  it  observed,  as  thougli 
Christ  was  a  continuous  link  in  the  Aaronie  chain,  thus  merging 
it  into  that  of  the  Christian  ministry :  so  flxr  from  it,  his  lineal 
*'  descent  is  not  counted  from  them  ;"  "  for  it  is  evident,"  says  the 
apostle,  "  that  our  Lord  sprang  out  of  Juda,  of  which  tribe  Moses 
spoke  nothing  concerning  priesthood.'"  No.  Christ's  priesthood 
"is  made,  not  after  the  law  of  a  carnal  commandment,  but  after  the 
power  of  an  endless  life  :"'  the  antitypal  "  High  Priest  of  our  pro- 
fession," "  called  of  God  as  was  Aaron,"  as  to  its  office  and  func- 
tions ;  and  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec,  as  being  uncliangeable 
and  incomrmmicable.  "  Wherefore,  he  is  able  to  save  them  to  the 
uttermost  that  come  unto  God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to 
make  intercession  for  them."^ 

These,  then,  and  similar  of  the  Pauline  statements  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  we  must  insist,  more  than  suggest  the  marked  dif- 
ference in  the  nature,  character,  and  design,  of  the  two  dispensa- 
tions ;  and  especially,  we  would  observe,  as  it  regards  the  question 
of  an  analogy  of  ministerial  succession,  under  each.  The  Jewish 
economy  was  typical  and  symbolic — "  the  shadows  of  good  tilings 
to  come,"  not  only,  but  its  very  priesthood  partook  largely  of  all 
these  characteristics.  Nationally,  it  had  for  its  ulterior  end  the 
security,  to  the  commonwealth,  of  the  possession  of  the  earthly 
Canaan.     It  was,  consequently,  concentrative  and  exclusive. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Christian  dispensation,  encompassing 
within  its  expansive  embrace  "  all  the  nations  and  families  of  the 
earth"*  who  were  to  "be  blessed"  in  Abraham  through  "the  seed 
Christ,"  '  was  universal  and  diffusive.  It  was  to  the  former  dis- 
pensation what  the  substance  is  to  the  shadow — the  antitype  to  the 
type.  It  was  also  spiritual  in  its  nature,  and  had  for  its  end,  the 
bestowment  of  a  heavenly  and  an  eternal  inheritance. 

Now,  that  rrs  ministky  partook  of  all  these  characteristics,  the 
facts  of  the  case  fully  evince.  Unlike  the  Aaronie  order,  when 
Aaron,  attired  in  his  gorgeous  sacerdotal  vestments,  and  standing 
before  the  stately  altar  located  within  "  the  holy  of  holies,"  is  in- 
augurated into  his  priestly  office  in  the  presence  of  all  the  congre- 
gation ;  in  the  vocation  of  the  twelve  apostles,  Christ,  invested  with 
all  power  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  as  though  to  stamp  with  an  in- 
delible and  unmistakable  seal,  the  dissimilarity  between  the  office 
and  the  functions  Aaronie  and  apostolic,  puts  forth  the  simple 
command  alike  to  Matthew  the  tax-gatherer  and  Peter  the  lisher- 
man,  "  Follow  me."  They  obeyed.  Henceforth  they  become  the 
constant  companions  of  Christ  during  his  ministry,  and  the  eye 
witnesses  of  his  death  and  resurrection  ;  and  hence,  were  possessed 
of  the  qualifications  indispensable  to  the  due  execution  of  the 
mandate,  "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,"  etc.  Where,  then,  we  ask, 
in  the  aspect  of  these  facts  and  circumstances,  is  there  any,  the 

(1)  Heb.  5  :  4.       (2)  Heb.  7  :  6,  14.       (3)  Heb.  7  :  6.       (4)  Heb.  7  :  25.       (4)  Gen.  12  :  3.      (6)  Oal. 
3:16 

17 


258 

least,  analogy,  between  the  vocation  of  Aaron,  and  that  of  the 
"  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb"  ?     And  so, 

2.  Of  the  limits  assigned  to  their  respective  spheres  of  action, 
as  inclusive  of  the  circumstances  of  person  and  place.  Prelacy, 
as  we  have  seen,  involves  "  headship,"  as  a  center  of  unity  to  the 
visible  Church ;  for  example — Peter  occupying  the  chair  of  pri- 
macy and  supremacy  at  Jlome — or  Peter  and  Paul,  as  the  first  and 
joint  Bishops  of  Eome — or  Timothy  of  E|)hesus,  Titus  of  Crete, 
etc. — The  Pope  of  Rome;  the-  Archbishop  of  Canterbury ;  the 
BisJwp  of  New  York.  In  either  case,  the  difference  in  the  nature 
and  character  of  the  prerogatives  assumed  or  the  territory  occu- 
pied, whether  larger  or  smaller,  being  merely  circumstantial,  all 
inferior  orders,  whether  clerics  or  laics,  being  subordinate  to  and 
dependent  on,  the  Head,  center  in  Him,  as  the  bond  of  union  to 
the  body. 

Now,  be  it  conceded  that,  in  the  high  priesthood  of  Judaism 
centered  such  a  bond  of  union  to  their  ecclesiastico-political  com- 
monwealth, such  an  arrangement  was  practicable  and  available 
not  only,  but  actually  grew  out  of,  and  hence  was  in  perfect  har- 
mony with,  the  circumstances  of  the  Jews  as  an  isolated  nation, 
with  a  sj'stem  of  religion  concentrative  and  exclusive.  Aaron, 
ministering  before  the  Lord  in  the  tabernacle,  which,  during  the 
encampments  in  the  wilderness,  occupied  the  center  of  the  sur- 
rounding tribes  as  they  were  stationed,  three  on  the  East,  three  on 
the  West,  three  on  the  North,  and  three  on  the  South,  might  well 
attract  all  eyes  to  him  as  their  visible  head  and  center  of  unity. 
The  same,  during  the  more  permanent  location  of  the  tabernacle 
in  Shiloh.  And  the  same,  after  the  erection  of  the  temple  at  Je- 
rusalem, "  whither  the  tribes  went  up,  the  tribes  of  the  Lord,  unto 
the  testimony  of  Israel,  to  give  thanks  unto  the  name  of  the 
Lord." '  Hence,  its  peculiar  adaptation  as  a  center  of  unity  in  a 
visible  Head. 

But,  how  diverse  from  this  arrangement,  that  of  the  Christian 
dispensation  !  The  sphere  of  its  operations  is  commensurate  with 
the  remotest  bounds  of  the  earth.  "The  field  is  tue  wokld."^ 
The  gospel  is  to  be  preached  "in  all  the  world"  and  "to  every 
creature,"'  etc.,  circumstances  one  would  suppose,  every  way  in- 
compatible with  the  idea  of  a  center  of  unity  in  a  visibly  located 
head,  essential  to  which  is,  that  he  be  accessible  to  all,  not  only, 
but  that  he  be  seen  by  all.  Under  the  Jewish  economy,  this  was 
both  possible  and  practicable.  Hence,  three  times  a  year,  all  the 
members  of  the  Church  repaired  to  their  high  priest  as  the  visi- 
ble head  of  unity,  at  Jerusalem.  But,  the  commission  apostolic 
was  an  itineracy.  Take,  for  example,  that  of  Peter.  Prelatists 
affirm,  that  he  was  for  about  twenty-five  years  bishop  of  Rome. 
The  question  of  his  ever  having  been  at  Rome  will  be  examined 
in  another  place.     We  deny  it.     "  We  read  of  his  being  at  Jeru- 

(1)  Ps.  122  :  3.     (2)   vlatt.  13  :  33,     (3)  Mark  16  :  15. 


259 

salem,  at  Samaria,  at  Lydda,  at  Joppa,  at  Cesarea,  at  Antioch. 
We  conclude  from  one  of  liis  epistles  that  he  also  traveled  through 
Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithj-nia.  And  this  was 
just  what  was  proper  for  him  to  do  as  one  of  the  apostles,  whose 
mission,  as  we  have  said,  was  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. ;  but 
certainly  which  he  should  not  have  done  if  he  were  appointed  the 
"visible  head  and  center  of  unity"  of  the  Church  at  Rome. 
"  What :  a  center  of  unity,  perpetually  shifting  its  place,  and  per- 
ambulating the  world!  A  visible  head  of  the  whole  Church, 
when  only  the  residents  of  one  little  province  at  a  time  could  tell 
where  he  was  to  be  found !  A  supreme  ruler  without  a  capital, 
or  court,  or  officer,  or  certain  dwelling-place !  A  successor  to 
Aaron,  without  a  sanctuary,  or  vestments,  or  vessels  of  service  !"* 
We  affirm,  therefore,  that  neither  in  the  vocation  of  the  apostles, 
nor  in  the  sphere  of  action  assigned  to  them  by  Christ,  is  there 
the  smallest  possible  resemblance  to  those  of  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood. And  these  circumstaiices,  when  taken  in  connection  with 
the  fact  that  Christ,  though  the  antitype  of  that  priesthood,  did  not 
form  a  continuous  link  in  the  Aaronic  chain  of  succession,  (not 
being  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  but  of  the  tribe  of  Juda,  "  of  which 
tribe  Moses  spake  nothing  concerning  priesthood,")  and  could  not 
have  transferred  to  his  apostles  an  office  and  functions  which,  from 
their  very  nature,  as  we  have  shown,  were  absolutely  incommuni- 
cable, demonstrate,  we  think,  that  the  idea  of  an  unbroken  apos- 
tolical succession  formed  no  part  of  the  elements  of  that  ministry 
instituted  by  Christ.     Again. 

3.  There  is,  on  the  prelatical  hypothesis  as  above,  another 
difficulty.  How,  we  submit,  is  their  alleged  analogy  between  the 
existing  ministry  (Episcopal)  and  the  Aaronic  orders  in  the  matter 
of  an  unbroken  succession,  to  be  reconciled  with  the  New  Testa- 
ment declaration  concerning  "  the  household  of  faith,"  which  is 
said  to  be  "  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  pro- 
phets,"^ etc?  Clearly,  on  that  hypothesis,  one  of  two  alternatives 
follow :  either,  first,  the  admitted  identification  of  the  sacerdotal 
character  of  the  office  apostolic  with  that  of  the  Aaronic,  in  the 
sense  that  the  terms  high  priest  and  apostle  are  used  interchange- 
ably— a  dilemma  from  which,  by  the  way,  the  so-called  "  Low 
Churchman"  will,  if  we  mistake  not,  find  it  no  small  task  to  extri- 
cate himself;  or  second,  the  admitted  faet,  that  "  an  horrible  thing 
hath  been  done  in  the  land,"  even  that  of  substituting,  in  the  place 
of  the  New  Testament  Apostles,  the  office  and  functions  of  an  ab- 
solutely abrogated  priesthood  ! 

4.  Another  difficulty :  I'he  above  "  foundation,"  so  far  as 
constituted  of  the  "  apostles,"  was  constructed,  not  of  one,  or  of 
six,  but  of  "  twelve"  stones,  and  hence  bore  an  exact  analogy  to 

(1)    Kph  2  :  19,  20. 
*  Stratten's   Srripture  Arj^iimpnt  against  Apostolic   Succession.     London,  1845.     pp. 
103,  104. 


260 

the  foundation-stones  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth — twelve 
patriarchs — twelve  apostles.  Now,  take  in  this  connection  the 
tenacity  of  the  tribes  in  preserving,  entire,  their  respective  gene- 
alogical records.  These  constituted,  as  before  remarked,  the  title- 
deeds  to  their  inheritance  of  the  allotments  parceled  out  to  them 
upon  the  divisions  of  the  Holy  Land  by  Moses  and  Joshua.  And, 
they  had  respect  to  the  future.  Looking  down  the  vista  of  coming 
ages,  though,  for  their  sins,  they  were  destined  to  be  led  "  captive  into 
all  nations,'"  and  to  be  "  trodden  down  of  the  Gentiles  until  the 
fullness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in  ;'"  yet,  "  touching  the  election," 
being  still  "beloved  for  the  fathers's  sakes,'"  when  "the  Lord 
shall  set  his  hand  again  the  second  time  to  restore  the  remnant  of 
his  people,  and  shall  assemble  the  outcasts  of  Israel,  and  gather 
together  the  dispersed  of  Judah  from  the  four  corners  of  the 
earth,"*  then  shall  they  occupy,  in  exact  accordance  with  the  ori- 
ginal order  of  their  title-deeds,  their  long-lost,  but  now  restored, 
inheritance. 

5.  The  question  then  presents  itself:  Did  it  form  any  part  of 
the  work  of  "the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb"  as  the  foundation- 
stones  upon  which,  in  conjunction  with  the  "prophets,"  the  Chris- 
tian Church  was  to  be  built,  to  place  the  tenure  of  the  inheritance 
of  "  the  household  of  God"  on  the  basis  of  an  analogous  genealo- 
gical title-deed?  Evidently,  the  nature,  character,  and  design  of  the 
two  dispensations  show  that  it  did  not.  For,  not  to  mention  the 
fact  of  the  ecclesiastico-political  economy  of  the  Jewish  Church 
state  under  the  Theocracy,  bound  down  as  it  was,  in  bondage  to 
the  Sinai  covenant  of  works,"  as  opposed  to  the  "  easy  yoke"  and 
"  light  burden'"'  of  the  Christian  economy  under  the  laM^  of  grace  ; 
while  the  former  was  to  pass  away,'  the  latter  was  destined  to  exist 
throughout  all  future  ages.'  Hence  the  decree  of  Heaven,  that  the 
title-deeds  of  "  the  children  of  faith,"  under  this  economy  to  that 
inheritance  which  is  incorruptible,"  should  consist  of  the  registry 
of  "the  names  of  the  first-born"  in  the  genealogical  "Book  of 
Life,"*  as  kept,  not  hj  the  twelve  apostles,  but  by  the  vigilant  eye 
and  unerring  pen  of  Christ,  "  the  chief  corner-stone.'"" 

6.  Let  us,  however,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  admit  that 
a  genealogical  registrj^,  analogous  to  that  of  the  Jewish  state,  was 
assigned  to  the  keeping  of  the  so-called  ajDOstolico-priestly  "  repre- 
sentatives" of  Christ.  Analogical  consistency  requires  that,  as 
each  of  the  twelve  patriarchs,  holding  a  federal  relationship  to 
their  respective  tribes,  stood  at  the  head  of  the  registry  of  the 
families  represented  bv  them,  so  with  the  "  twelve  apostles."  The 
dogma  of  apostolical  succession,  TF  FOUNDED  IN  TRUTH, 
must,  to  be  consistent,  exhibit  a  tabular  view,  separate  and  entire, 
of  each  of  the  original  "  representatives."  That  the  original  col- 
lege of  "  the  twelve"  should  be  broken  up,  and  a  large  majority 

(1)  Luke  21  :  24.        (2)  Luke  21  :  24.         (3)  Rom.  11  :  28.        (4)  Isa.  H  :  11,  12.       (5)  Gal.  4  :  34. 
(6)  Matt.  11  :  29,  30.     (7)  Heb.  8  :  13.     (8)  Dan.  7  :  27.     (9)  Philipp.  4  :  3.     (10)  Eph.  2  :  20. 


261 

of  them  be  consigned  to  the  shades  of  an  irrecoverable  oblivion, 
while  some  one  or  two  only — to  prop  up  a  favorite  theory — are 
clothed  with  pre-eminent  apostolic  honor  and  power,  how  at  war 
with  that  bond  by  which  they  were  equally  united  to  Christ,  the 
Head !  You  see  this,  as  illustrated  in  their  united  converse  with 
Christ  from  the  time  of  their  call  to  the  apostleship,  to  the  cruci- 
fixion. You  see  it  after  the  ascension,  when,  a  vacancy  being 
created  by  the  apostasy  and  death  of  Judas,  the  number,  "  twelve," 
is  preserved  by  the  call  of  another — the  Apostle  Paul* — to  fill  it. 
You  see  it  in  the  predicted  glory  which  Christ  announced  awaited 
them  as  the  reward  of  their  work  :  "  In  the  regeneration  ...  ye  shall 
sit  on  twelve  thrones,'"  etc.  And  you  see  it,  finally,  in  their 
eternal  and  immutable  union  in  the  apocalyptical  Jerusalem. 
"  And  the  wall  of  the  city  had  twelve  foundations,  and  in  them 
THE  NAMES  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb.'"  It  follows, 
therefore,  on  the  prelatical  hypothesis  of  an  unbroken  genealogical 
succession,  that  "  there  might  be  twelve  lines  of  descent"  from  the 
twelve  apostles,  not  only,  but  that  "  the  model  in  the  true  Jewish 
genealogies  shows  that  there  ought  to  be  twelve  lines  of  descent."f 
Add  to  the  above  that  scriptural  injunction,  "  What  God  hath 
joined  together,  let  not  man  put  asunder,'"  and  a  pious  and  en- 
lightened mind  cannot  but  shrink  with  instinctive  horror  at  the 
thought  that  any,  bearing  the  Christian  name,  should  be  so 
reckless  of  palpable  truth,  and  so  determined  in  the  support  of  a 
mere  dogma,  as  to  interrupt  and  infringe  upon,  their  equal  rights 
and  honors,  and  their  indissoluble  unity  I 


SECTION   V.  , 

Direct  examination  of  the  prelatical  theory  of  succession  as  an  alleged  fact. — Involves 
the  process  of  a  procreating  power. — Absurdity  of — Illustrated  in  the  case  of  Paul 
and  Judas  Iscariot.  —  Anti-prelatical  theory  of  the  succession.  —  Archbishop 
Whately  on. — The  two  theories  compared. — The  high  pretensions  of  prelacy. — 
Tremendous  consequences  pending  the  issue. — Must  be  subjected  to  the  severest 
test. — Requisites  for. — I.  Authentic  documents — None  to  be  found. — II.  An  au- 
thentic '"Register"  or  catalogue — None  ever  produced. — III.  A  triple  agency  in 
welding  each  successive  link — The  pretense  preposterous. — IV.  Such  procreating 
power  has  no  archetype  in  nature — Hence  designated  by  Paul,  "  endless  gene- 
alogies,"  (1  Tim.  1  :  4.) 

We  have  now  fully  considered  the  subject  of  the  alleged  eccle- 
siastical genealog}^,  as  involved  in  the  prelatical  dogma  of  an  un- 
broken apostolical  succession.  Our  examinations  of  the  genealogi- 
cal records  of  "Holy  Scripture,"  furnish  no  indications  either  as 
to  the  origin,  or  directions  to  perpetuate,  such  a  record.     On  the 

(1)  Matt.  19  :28.     (2)  Rev.  21  :  14.     (.•?)   Matt.  19  :  6 
*  Part  II.,  pp.  133-136  t  Stratten,  p.  37. 


262 

contrary,  from  the  nature,  character,  and  design  of  the  three  lines 
therein  recorded, — those  relating  to  our  blessed  Lord,  to  the  Jew- 
ish nation,  and  to  the  Levitical  priesthood ; — in  addition  to  the 
fact  of  the  total  absence  of  all  analogy  between  the  two  dispensa- 
tions, Jewish  and  Christian,  and  of  their  respective  ecclesiastical 
orders  in  regard  cither  to  the  circumstances  of  their  vocation  or 
spheres  of  action ;  the  difficulties  involved  in  said  theory,— that  of 
substituting  an  absolutely  abrogated  priesthood  in  the  place  of  the 
New  Testament  apostles,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  limiting  the 
honors  and  powers  common  to  all  "  the  twelve"  to  some  one  or  two 
of  their  number  on  the  other,  all  combine  to  demonstrate  its  utter 
fallacy. 

Prelatists,  nevertheless,  persist  in  alleging  the  fact,  of  such  an 
ecclesiastico-genealogical  succession. 

This  brings  us  to  the  point  of  our  proposed  direct  examination 
of  its  validity. 

Is  it  then,  as  a  fact,  sustained  hy  the  combined  authority  of  "  Holy 
Scripture  and  ancient  authors  ".^ 

I.  First,  then.  To  conduct  our  examinations  into  the  validity 
of  this  alleged  fact  understaudingly,  we  must  know  the  jDrecise 
sense  attached  to  the  term,  succession,  by  prelatists.  Assuming, 
then,  "  the  truth  and  authority  of  an  ecclesiastical  genealogy," 
they  affirm,  "  that  a  spirit  of  life  is  infused  into  the  act  of  ordina- 
tion, which  gives  it  a  procreating  power.  The  individual  who  re- 
ceives ordination  connects  a  paternal  relation  with  the  hands  from 
which  it  comes.  It  is  alleged  that  this  paternity  must  in  some 
wa}''  be  manifest,  and  well-assured,  through  all  ascending  links, 
until  3'ou  come  up  to  the  homds  of  an  apostle  ;  and,  that  through 
the  unbroken  links  of  this  lengthening  chain  alone,  can  the  grace 
of  ministerial  authority  and  sacramental  efficacj^  be  conveyed."* 
In  brief,  Christ  transferred  "the  offce''''  which  he  was  leaving  to 
his  twelve  apostles,  with  power  to  transfer  "  the  very  same  office" 
to  others,  as  their  successors,  the  mode  of  transfer  in  each  case 
being  that  of  manual  impositions.  This,  Bishop  Mcllvaine,  in 
speaking  of  the  appointment  of  Matthias  as  the  successor  of  Isca- 
riot,  says  :  "It  was  communicated  hy  the  liands  of  those  [the  apos- 
tles] who  received  it  from  the  Lord."f 

But,  we  ask :  Is  this  the  true  idea  of  the  term  ?  Let  us  see, 
"  If  a  king  create  a  peer,  with  right  to  transmit  his  title  to  his  de- 
scendants, the  heir  of  the  family,  as  he  rises  to  wear  his  honors, 
becomes  the  successor  of  the  first  peer,  not  of  the  king — of  him 
who  received  the  title,  not  of  him  who  gave  it.":}: 

Now,  it  were  a  waste  of  time  further  to  argue  the  fallacv  of  the 
alleged  transfer,  by  our  Lord,  of  his  priestly  functions  to  mere 

*  Stratten's  Scripture  Argument  against  the  Apostolical  Succession.     London.     1845. 
+  Bishop  Mcllvaine's  Argument  for  the  Apostolical  Succession,  p.  9. 
X  Straiten,  p.  154. 


263 

mortals.  That  therefore  aside,  we  contend,  "  if  the  apostles,  in 
the  plenitude  of  their  authority,  had  created  any  order  of  ministers 
in  the  Church  with  power  to  perpetuate  their  honors  and  functions, 
those  who  received  the  entail  would  become  the  successors  of  the 
first  of  their  order,  not  the  successors  of  the  apostles  themselves."* 

Again.  We  submit,  that  there  is  an  essential  difference  be- 
tween the  uninterrupted  perpetuity  of  an  of&ce,  and  that  of  its 
continuance  by  a  succession,  as  alleged  by  prelatists.  The  true 
idea  of  a  seminal  succession  necessarily  implies  an  existing  chasm 
(be  it  of  longer  or  shorter  duration)  hy  death  ^  between  A.  and  B., 
otherwise  B.  becomes  a  usurper  of  an  office  which  still  exists. 
The  case  of  Paul's  appointment  by  Christ  to  fill  the  vacancy  in 
the  apostolic  college  occasioned  by  the  death  of  Iscariot,  is  in 
point.  And  this  we  affirm,  and  shall  prove  in  the  sequel,  is  the 
only  instance  of  a  legitimate  apostolical  succession  on  record. 
The  idea  that  "a  power,"  civil  or  ecclesiastical,  "to  fill  a  vacancy 
in  office,"  is  identical  with  "a  power  to  perpetuate  an  order,"  is 
preposterous.  "  We  understand  matters  in  these  United  States, 
much  better  than  to  identify  such  things."f  The  office  has  for  its 
basis,  the  constitution,  divine  or  human,  ecclesiastical  or  civil,  as 
the  case  may  be  ;  the  agency  employed  in  inducting  into  office,  is 
but  the  visible  seal  affixed  to  the  power- — the  constitution — which 
created  it.  It  follows,  that  the  Aaronic  priesthood  was  not,  in  the 
strict  sense,  a  succession.  The  mode  of  its  continuance  rather  elimi- 
nates the  idea  of  the  uninterrupted  perpetuity  of  the  qfflce.  Aaron, 
with  his  own  eyes,  looked  upon  him  who  was  to  perform  the  same 
services,  at  the  same  altar,  and  in  the  same  place  in  Avhich  he  had 
for  the  period  of  thirty-five  years  been  engaged,  ere  they  were 
closed  in  death.  And,  with  the  exception  that  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood was  perpetuated  by  lineal  descent  from  Aaron,  the  same  prin- 
ciple will  apply  to  the  uninterrupted  continuance  of  what  was  de- 
signed to  be,  and  has  been,  the  ordinary  and  standing  ministry  of 
the  New  Testament  Church. 

And  this  leads  us  to  remark,  that,  so  far  from  a  denial,  as  is  al- 
leged, of  the  uninterrupted  perpetuity  of  the  Christian  ministry  b^ 
«7i^i-prelatists,  they  insist  that  the  legitimacy  of  such  an  inference 
rests  entirely  upon  the  evidence,  whether  that  unbroken  continuity 
depends  upon  a  transmission  of  the  office  seminallj"  through  indi- 
vidual hishops,  or  whether  it  consists  in  the  perpetuity  of  a  Chris- 
tian ministry  generally.  Of  the  prelatical  hypothesis,  they  deny, 
that  there  is  any  the  least  countenance  or  support  therefor,  in 
"  holy  Scripture."  With  Archbishop  AYliately,  they  affirm,  that 
the  fallacy  of  the  prelatical  scheme  "consists  in  confounding  to- 
gether the  unbroken  apostolical  succession  of  a  Christian  ininistry 
generally,  and  the  same  succession  in  an  unbroken  line,  of  this  or 
that  particular  minister.":}: 

*  Stratten,  p.  164.  f  Duffield  on  Episcopacy,  p.  97. 

t  Whately's  Essays  on  the  Kingdom  of  Christ,  Essay  III.,  pp.  180-18]. 


264 

They  also  further  insist  that,  if  their  hypothesis,  so  far  as  con- 
nected with  the  evidence  to  be  derived  from  "ancient  authors,"  is 
liable  to  tlic  contingency  of  interruption — in  other  words,  if  proof 
can  be  adduced  of  the  non-existence^  at  any  given  period  since  the 
days  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  of  such  a  Christian  ministry  gene- 
rally, that  is,  a  ministry  not  prelatically  consecrated ;  3^et,  that 
such  a  ministry,  to  say  the  least  (prelatists  themselves  being 
judges),  has  equal  claims  to  validity  with  the  other,  unless  proof 
can  be  furnished,  express,  positive,  amounting  to  the  clearness  of 
demonstration,* 

*  On  this  su])jpct,  we  quote  the  following,  from  the  very  able  "  Essay  on  the  Primi- 
tive Church  Officers,"  a  work  attributed  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Addison  Alexander,  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History,  etc.,  in  the  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  New  Jersey. 
New  York:  Charles  Scribner.     1851.     He  says — 

"The  impossibility  of  prnvina:  a  particular  succession,  in  the  case  of  any  minister,  is  tacitly  ad- 
mitted, on  the  part  of  those  who  claim  it,  by  evading;  the  demand  for  proof,  and  simply  alleging  the 
fact  to  be  notorious.  The  case  of  ministerial  succession  is  compared  to  that  of  natural  descent  from 
Adam  or  Noah,  which  no  man  can  prove,  but  which  no  man  disputes.  The  fallacy  of  this  analogi- 
cal argument  scarcely  needs  to  be  exposed.  The  descent  of  any  individual  from  Adam  is  notori- 
ous only  on  the  supposition  that  the  whole  human  family  is  sprung  from  a  single  pair.  This  being 
assumed,  the  other  follows  of  necessity.  If  all  descend  from  Adam,  so  must  every  one.  To  make 
the  cases  parallel,  we  must  =up])Ose  a  plurality  of  races,  and  a  dispute  to  which  of  these  a  certain 
individual  belongs.  In  that  case  the  appeal  to  notoriety  would  be  absurd,  and  in  the  absence  of 
explicit  genealogies,  the  only  proof  available  would  be  correspondence  in  the  physical  characteris- 
tics of  the  progenitor  and  his  alleged  descendants.  In  the  supposed  case  this  might  be  a  difficult 
and  doubtful  process  from  the  want  of  any  accurate  and  authentic  description  of  the  ancestor.  But 
m  the  case  of  ministerial  descent,  we  have  the  advantage  of  a  description  not  only  exact,  but  infal- 
lible, with  which  those  claiming  to  be  successors  of  the  primitive  ministers  may  be  compared  with 
rigorous  exactness.  Let  us  suppose  that  according  to  the  Scriptures  men  had  sprung  from  two  dis- 
tinct originals,  and  that  these  were  represented  as  distinguished  by  the  same  external  marks  which 
now  distinguish  Africans  from  Europeans.  If  any  one  should  claim  to  be  descended  from  either  of 
tliese  stocks,  and  his  pretensions  were  disputed,  the  nearest  approach  that  could  be  made  to  a  solu- 
tion of  the  question,  would  be  by  comparing  the  complexion,  features,  form,  hair,  etc.,  of  the  claim- 
ant with  the  like  p.^irticulars  ascribed  in  Scripture  to  the  father  of  the  race.  The  application  of  the 
rule  might  be  precarious,  but  without  specific  genealogies,  no  better  proof  could  be  adduced,  or 
would  be  called  for. 

"  This  imaginary  case  affords  a  close  analogy  to  that  of  apostolical  succession.  Certain  bodies  of 
men  claim  to  be  exclusively  descended,  by  official  derivation,  from  the  primitive  apostles,  and  re- 
ject the  claims  of  others  to  a  similar  descent,  upon  the  ground  that  they  are  not  able  to  produce 
specific  proofs  of  an  unbroken  succession  :  and  when  charged  with  the  same  defect  in  their  own 
orders,  they  appeal  to  notoriety,  as  if  there  were  no  room  to  doubt  or  question  their  extraction.  But 
it  may  be  questioned  on  the  same  grounds  upon  which  they  question  that  of  others,  and  the  only 
way  in  which  the  point  at  issue  can  be  settled  is  by  comparing  the  distinctive  attributes  of  those 
who  now  profess  to  have  succeeded  the  apostles  in  the  ministerial  office,  with  the  corresponding 
traits  of  the  apostles  themselves.  By  tliis  test  we  are  willing  to  abide.  We  lay  no  claim  to  apos- 
tolical succession,  except  so  far  as  we  agree  with  the  apostles  and  the  primitive  ministry,  in  doc- 
trine, spirit,  discipline  and  life.  And  we  consider  our  opponents  as  reduced  to  the  necessity,  either 
of  submitting  to  the  same  test,  or  of  proving  in  detail  their  individual  descent  from  the  apostles. 
The  attempt  to  substitute  for  such  proof  the  admitted  fact,  that  the  Anglican  or  Romish  clergy  of 
the  present  day  are,  as  a  body,  the  successors  of  the  apostolic  ministry,  is  to  evade  the  difficulty  by 
confounding  general  and  particular  succession,  by  insisting  on  the  latter  when  our  orders  are  in 
question,  and  producing  the  former  when  their  own  commission  is  demanded.  This  is  a  virtual 
admission  of  tlie  fact,  wliich  forms  the  ground  of  our  last  objection,  to  wit,  that  apostolical  succes- 
sion, in  the  strict  sense  of  the  terms,  and  as  a  practical  test  of  valid  ministrations,  is  impracticable, 
and  therefore  useless. 

"  If  then,  as  we  have  tried  to  show,  this  doctrine  is  not  only  unsupported  by  express  command  and 
binding  example,  and  by  any  necessity  arising  from  the  nature  of  the  ministerial  office,  or  the  ends 
for  wh^ch  it  was  established,  but  at  variance  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  headship,  superseded  by 
the  surer  test  of  doctrinal  conformity  to  apostolic  teachings,  contradicted  by  the  providence  of 
God,  and  practically  useless  even  to  its  advocates  ;  it  is  not  perhaps  too  bold  an  inference  from 
these  considerations,  that  an  incapacity  to  trace  our  ministerial  authority  in  regular  succession, 
step  by  step,  to  the  apostles,  is  no  conclusive  argument,  nor  even  a  presumptive  one,  against  the 
validity  of  Presbyterian  orders.  Here  we  might  safely  rest  the  defense  of  our  ministrations  against 
all  attacks  connected  with  this  point  of  apostolical  succession  ;  but  we  cannot  do  justice  to  the 
strength  of  our  position,  without  cxiiibiting  tlie  subject  in  another  point  of  view.  We  have  en- 
deavored to  show,  that  the  apostolical  succession,  which  we  are  accused  of  wanting,  is  not  essential 
to  a  valid  ministry.  This  would  suffice  to  justify  our  claims,  even  on  the  supposition  that  our  op- 
ponents possess  in  the  highest  degree  wliat  they  demand  of  us,  and  that  we,  on  the  otlier  hand,  are 
utterly  without  it.  But  we  have  furthermore  seen  reason  to  believe  that  our  opponents  have  it  in 
a  much  more  limited  degree  than  that  which  they  require  of  others.  This,  in  addition  to  the  unes- 
sential character  of  the  advantage,  would  at  least  have  the  effect  of  bringing  us  nearer  to  a  level 


265 

1.  That  the  so-called  seven  orders  of  the  Romish  priesthood,  or 
the  three  orders  of  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  of  the  Anglican 
ministry,  have  been  transmitted  through  an  uribrohen  line,  during 
that  period. 

2.  That  each  link  has  been  added  to  the  chain,  in  accordance 
with  the  alleged  apostolical  forms  and  ceremonies,  namely,  conse- 
cration  hy  three  hishojys,  preceded  by  a  lawful  baptism,  and  ordi- 
nation as  a  deacon  and  a  priest* 

The  declarations,  that  the  first  link  in  the  alleged  apostolical 
chain  is  "fastened  to  the  throne  of  God,"  and  that  the  entire  chain 
has  been  "  preserved  as  inviolate  as  the  line  of  the  descent  from 
Adam,  or  the  succession  of  seedtime  and  harvest,  of  day  and  night, 
of  summer  and  winter ;"f  and  hence,  that  "every  bishop,  priest 
and  deacon"  of  the  hierarchy  "  can,  if  he  please,  trace  his  own  spi- 
ritual descent  from  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul;":}:  these  declarations, 
we  repeat,  taken  in  connection  with  the  paternal  relation  which  is 
claimed  to  exist  between  the  apostles  and  their  successors,  and 
which  is  made  to  depend  on  "  the  sacramental  virtue"  transmit- 

with  our  neighbors,  still  supposing  apostolical  succession  in  the  ministerial  office  to  be  altogether 
wanting  upon  our  part. 

"But  even  this  residuary  difference  between  us,  with  respect  to  the  validity  of  our  pretensions, 
disappears  when  it  is  known  that,  so  far  as  apostolical  succession  can  be  verified,  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  the  United  States  possesses  it,  as  really  and  fully  as  the  Church  of  England.  In  making 
this  assertion,  as  in  all  the  reasonings  of  the  present  essay,  we  assume  as  proved  already,  that  a 
superior  order  in  the  ministry  to  that  of  presbyters  is  not  essential  to  the  being  of  the  Church,  but 
that  from  the  beginning  presbyters  have  exercised  the  highest  powers  now  belonging  to  the  minis- 
try. If  so,  it  is  through  them  that  the  apostolical  succession  must  be  traced,  and  we  accordingly 
maintain  that  our  orders  may  be  just  as  surely  traced  in  this  way  up  to  apostolic  times,  as  those 
of  any  other  Church  through  bishops.  The  denial  of  this  fact  has,  for  the  most  part,  been  con- 
nected with  the  false  assumption  that  the  ministry  of  our  Church  has  been  derived  from  that  of  Ge- 
neva, and  depends  for  its  validitj'  on  the  ministerial  authority  of  Calvin  ;  whereas  we  trace  our 
orders,  through  the  original  presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  to  the  mother-church  of  Scotland,  which  is 
well  known  to  have  been  reformed  with  the  concurrence  and  assistance  of  men  regularly  ordained 
in  the  Churcli  of  Rome.  The  principal  admixture  of  this  Scottish  element,  in  our  earliest  presby- 
teries, was  witii  New  England  Puritans,  among  whom  only  two  examples  of  lay-ordination  are  be- 
lieved to  have  occurred,  and  whose  ecclesiastical  system  was  originally  founded  by  regularly  or- 
dained priests  of  the  Anglican  establishment.  Tlie  proportion  of  those  members,  in  our  primitive 
church-courts,  whose  ordination  was  derived  from  more  obscure  and  doubtful  sources,  such  as  the 
Welsh  and  English  Independents,  was  extremely  small.  Whatever  then  a  regular  succession  may 
be  worth,  we  can  lay  claim  to  it  as  far  back  and  as  certainly  as  any  of  our  adversaries. 

"  This  fact  is  indeed  so  'notorious,'  that  it  has  been  met,  for  the  most  part,  not  with  a  denial  of 
the  fact  itself,  but  with  an  allegation,  that  the  only  apostolical  succession  in  existence  is  derived 
through  bishops,  as  superior  to  presbyters.  It  is  the  need  of  something  tti  destroy  the  force  of  pres- 
byterial  succession,  as  a  fact  which  cannot  be  denied,  that  has  occasioned  the  perpetual  and  almost 
universal  combination  of  the  doctrine  of  Succession  with  the  doctrine  of  Episcopacy,  as  alike  es- 
sential to  the  organization  of  the  Church.  We  have  ventured,  however,  to  discuss  them  separately, 
and  have  thus  been  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  higliest  powers  of  tlie  Churcli  belong  tu  presby- 
ters as  such  ;  that  succession,  if  derived  at  all,  must  be  derived  through  them  ;  and  that  through 
them  we  possess  it  no  less  certainly  and  fully  than  the  Church  of  England  or  the  Church  of  Rome. 
We  cannot  indeed  show  that  every  link  in  the  long  chain  has  been  without  a  flaw,  but  neither  can 
our  adversaries  do  so  upon  their  part.  Until  the  reformation  the  two  lines  are  coincident,  and  since 
that  time,  the  continuation  of  the  series  of  presbyters,  in  Scotland,  England,  and  America,  is  as  cer- 
tain and  notorious  as  that  of  bishops.  Supposing,  then,  as  we  of  course  do,  that  the  rank  which  we 
have  claimed  for  presbyters  is  justly  due  to  them,  it  follows  necessarily,  that  no  objection  to  the 
validity  of  Presbyterian  orders  can  be  founded  on  the  want  of  apostolical  succession  ;  partly  be- 
cause we  are  as  really  possessed  of  it  as  any  other  ministers  or  Church  whatever.  When  any  urge 
this  argument  against  our  ministrations,  they  assume  two  facts,  both  essential  to  the  truth  of  their 
conclusion  ;  first,  that  such  succession  is  of  absolute  necessity  ;  and  secondly,  that  they  alone  pos- 
sess it.  If  either  of  these  assumptions  is  unfounded,  it  destroys  the  argument  ;  for  if  succession  is 
not  necessary,  it  matters  little  who  has  or  has  it  not  ;  and  if  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  as  much 
of  it  as  our  opponents,  they  can  have  no  pretext  for  impugning  the  validity  of  our  ministrations. 
By  disproving  either  of  tho.se  two  positions,  the  conclusion  is  destroyed.  By  disproving  both,  it  is 
doubly  detroyed,  'twice  dead,  plucked  up  by  the  roots.'" 

♦  See  p.  249. 

t  Bi-shop  Mcllvaine's  Argument,  etc.,  p.  9. 

X  Dr.  Hook's  two  Sermons,  etc. 


266 

ted  to  them  through  imposition  of  hands,  and  without  which  all 
who  claim  to  be  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ  "  are  gross  impostors,"* 
warrant  the  demand  for  such  demonstration.  No.  It  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  be  told,  that  this  is  a  matter  "  too  notorious  to  require 
proof;"  that  "it  is  evident  unto  all  men  diligently  reading  holy 
Scripture  and  ancient  authors  ;"f  and,  that  "any  bishop,"  etc., 
"  CAN,  IF  HE  PLEASE,"  tracc  his  spiritual  pedigree  back  to  Peter  and 
Paul.  In  other  words,  that  the  most  trifling  effort  imaginable  is 
all  that  is  requisite  to  satisfy  the  most  scrupulous !  An  insinua- 
tion, we  affirm,  which,  for  polemical  casuistry,  Jesuitical  sophistry, 
and  bold  assumption,  stands  unrivaled  in  the  department  of  let- 
ters. The  tendency  is,  that  the  unsophisticated  mind,  in  falling 
upon  them,  captivated  by,  and  subdued  into  a  holy  reverence  for, 
the  ex-cathedra  authority  of  the  "oracle  speaking  from  its  place 
of  mystery,"  is  betrayed  into  tlu  very  neglect  of  that  diligent  read- 
ing of  "holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,"  which  they  would 
seem  so  earnestly  to  recommend." 

No, — we  again  repeat.  No  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  interested 
in  this  matter,  is  left  at  liberty  to  suspend  an  examination  of  the 
evidence,  whether  indeed  he  forms  one  of,  or  is  in  any  way  connected 
with,  the  links  in  the  alleged  unbroken  chain  of  succession  from 
the  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  upon  "  a  mere  caprice  of  his  mind's 
volition."  Is  it  not  clear,  on  the  prelatical  hypothesis,  that  "  if  he 
can,"  it  is  not,  "if  he  please"?  That,  "if  he  can,  he  should  feel 
it  to  be  at  his  peril  if  he  does  not  do  it"  ?  That,  "  if  the  present 
regeneration  and  pardon,  and  the  eternal  safety  of  the  flock  to 
which  he  ministers,  depend  on  the  certainty  of  his  being  lineally 
descended  from  an  apostle,  then,  before  he  assume  the  tremendous 
responsibility,"  "he  is  bound,  by  all  the  considerations  which 
can  weigh  with  a  rational  and  virtuous  mind,  to  make,  first,  him- 
self, and  then  those  who  are  to  receive  grace  by  him,  quite  sure 
upon  this  vital  point"  ?  And  finally,  that  "  no  labor,  no  cost,  no 
travel  should  he  spare, — no  rest  should  he  take,  night  or  day, 
until  he  possess  the  indisputable  genealogical  document,  clear  in 
the  whole  line,  and  firm  in  every  link  of  the  chain  ?"  :j: 

And,  upon  a  peradventure  that  these  interrogatories  may  move 
any  to  re-assert  the  prelatical  claims,  Ave  would  beg  deferentially  to 
suggest  the  following  course,  as  calculated  greatly  to  facilitate  the 
labors  of  the  teacher,  not  only,  but  to  inspire  confidence  in  the 
minds  of  the  taught. 

First,  then  : — in  regard  to  the  documents^  necessary  to  authenti- 
cate the  genealogy  of  every  individual  in  question.  They  either 
exist,  or  they  do  not.  If  they  do  exist,  they  must  have  been  pre- 
served entire  and  immaculate.  The  uncertainty  and  deficiency  of 
man's  pleasure  must  have  been  provided  against  by  the  certainty 

*  Bishop  McCoskrey's  Sermon,  etc. 
t  Preface  to  Ordinal,  etc.,  B.  of  C.  Pr. 
t  Straiten. 


267 

and  completeness  of  tlie  Divine  pleasure,  which  considerations,  of 
course,  argue  miraculous  interposition  in  their  behalf.  No  other 
documents  than  such,  can  be  admitted  in  proof  of  the  unbroken 
continuity  of  a  claim,  which,  "  at  its  beginning,"  is  alleged  to  be 
"  fastened  to  the  throne  of  God."  "  Iloly  Scripture  and  ancient 
authors,"  are  claimed  to  constitute  these  documents.  We  appeal, 
then :  they  mtist  be  admitted  to  stand  on  a  basis  of  equal  autho- 
rity. But  the  documentary  evidence  derived  from  "  Holy  Scrip- 
ture "  in  the  premises,  forms  but  a  very  inconsiderable  portion  of 
tlie  whole.  Dr.  Chapman  tells  us,  that  "those  whom  we  are  ac- 
customed to  honor  as  the_  fathers  of  the  Church,  always  preserved 
with  the  greatest  care  the  catalogues  of  bishops,"*  etc.  But,  who 
are  these  "fathers  of  the  Church"?  Are  their  genealogical  regis- 
ters, like  those  of  "Holy  Scripture,"  immaculate?  If  not,  how 
can  we  trust  them  in  a  matter  upon  which  are  suspended  "  the  eter- 
nal interests  of  millions  "  ?  f     Again, 

Second.  Than  prelatists,  no  class  of  men  rank  higher  in  the 
scale  of  intellectual  endowments,  acquirements,  and  zeal.  How 
diligently  have  they  cultivated  every  obscure  nook  and  corner  of 
classic  soil !  What  word  is  there  that  they  have  not  traced  to  its 
root !  What  sentence,  difficult  or  defective,  which  they  have  not 
toiled  to  elucidate  or  restore  !  Who,  besides,  have  produced  more 
numerous  and  elaborate  works  in  the  departments  of  divinity,  the 
abstruse  sciences  and  the  arts  !  We  now  ask  then  :  will  they  re- 
fer us  to  one  clear  and  authentic  ecclesiastico-genealogical  "regis- 
ter" of  the  alleged  succession  of  bishops,  etc.  from  Peter  and  Paul  ? 
Their  neglect  to  do  so,  cannot  other  than  involve  them  in  the 
guilt  of  a  dereliction  of  duty  in  the  defense  and  support  of  a  theory 
professedl}^  so  dear  to  them,  or  render  questionable  their  sincerity 
in  its  adoption.     And  then  too,  consider, 

Third,  the  condition  indispensable  to  the  authentication  of  such 
a  catalogue,  that  of  a  triple  agency  in  the  welding  of  each  link,  suc- 
cessively, to  the  mighty  chain.  The  priests  and  deacons  aside, 
take,  for  example,  the  last  consecrated  link  in  the  American 
chain — the  Rev.  Dr.  Upfold,  of  the  diocese  of  Indiana.  Should 
it  happen  to  "please"  him,  in  compliance  with  the  wish  of  some 
Presbyterian  inquirer,  to  enter  upon  the  task  of  tracing  back  his 
alleged  "  spiritual  descent"  to  the  hands  of  Peter  and  Paul," — 
bearing  in  mind  that,  from  the  point  whence  he  starts,  the  law 
of  congruitv  will  require  an  increase  of  certainty  just  in  proportion 
with  his  retrograde  computation  from  himself, — the  validity  of  the 
orders  of  the  three  who  consecrated  him,  must  depend  upon  the 
validity  of  the  orders  of  the  three  times  three  {nine)  who  conse- 
crated them,  and  theirs  again,  upon  the  three  times  nine  {twenty- 
seven)  who  consecrated  them,  etc.  etc.,  each  last  number  being  mul- 
tiplied by  three,  from  generation  to  generation,  until  at  length  (as 

*  Sermons  on  the  Church,  pp   100,  101. 
t  Bishop  McCoskrey's  Sermon. 


268 

is  now  the  fact)  tlie  genealogy  of  the  so-called  Christian  priesthood 
becomes  as  inextricable  and  impracticable  in  tracing,  as  is  the  the- 
ogony  of  the  myriads  of  deities  who  people  (fabulously)  the  tem- 
2:>les  of  Ilindostan.  Nor — as  we  must  further  remark  in.  this  con- 
nection— will  it  at  all  lighten  the  task  of  the  good  bishop  to  find, 
that,  so  soon  as  he  comes,  in  the  catalogue,  to  the  name  of  an  in- 
dividual who  was  not  ordained  by  the  help  of  his  predecessor  to  the 
See  to  which  the  catalogue  belongs,  the  antecedent  line  is  directly 
cut  off  from  that  which  he  had  been  previously  tracing,  into  num- 
berless collateral  lines,  the  validity  of  the  orders  of  which  must  be 
equally  authenticated  with  the  other!  Take,  in  illustration,  the 
Anglican  Church,  and  Avho  does  not  know  that  there  is  not  a  See 
in  it,  which  has  not  been  filled  again  and  again  by  translation,  and 
whose  line,  consequently,  as  to  ordination,  has  not  in  that  mode 
been  cut  through  and  through  into  fragments  of  which  it  would  be 
difficult  to  find  the  number,  and  sometimes  to  make  out  where  the 
one  ends  and  the  other  begins.  Nor  does  the  difficulty  of  the  task 
terminate  here.  The  multiplying  threads  of  the  labj-rinth  which 
he  has  been  threading  may  now  stretch  outward,  and  lead  him  out 
of  these  realms  across  to  the  continent,  and  round  about  to  one  and 
another,  if  not  to  all,  of  its  Episcopal  Sees.  Having  reached  the 
period  at  which  Rome  held  supremacy  in  England,  he  may  find  an 
Italian,  a  German,  or  a  Gallic  bishop,  here  and  there  assisting  in 
ordination,  or  even  installed  by  translation ;  and  where  then  will 
end  his  wanderings  after  the  ascending  lines  of  his  pedigree  ? 
Finally,  on  this  subject,  we  remark. 

Fourth,  that  there  is  a  peculiarily  connected  with  Episcopal 
genealogy  which  is  found  in  no  order  of  nature,  and  no  analogy 
of  official  transmission  :  that,  we  mean,  of  the  reproduction  of 
each  successive  link  in  the  chain,  by  three  consecrators.  It  is  a 
mode  of  descent  and  propagation  which  has  no  archetype  in  nature. 
There  is  in  it  no  special  beauty  nor  fitness  to  commend  it  to  a 
penetrating  reason  which  finds  out  and  puts  together  the  hidden 
links  that  connect  God's  varied  and  wonderful  works  with  each 
other ;  no  affinity  and  harmony,  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  marked 
discordance  with  essential  theological  truth,  as  that  Avhich  declares 
that  Christians  are  born  ''not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the 
flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God."' 

Nor  need  it  be  affirmed,  that,  to  the  prophetic  eye  of  the  apos- 
tle, the  interior  of  this  labyrinth,  trebling  its  mazes  at  every  step, 
lay  open  and  exposed  ;  but  if  it  did,  could  he  have  employed  a 
word  more  descriptive  of  its  nature,  or  of  its  variance  with  the  ge- 
nealogical records  of  Holy  Scripture  than  the  phrase,  "  endless  ge- 
nealogies" ?* 

(1)  John  1  :  13. 
*  Straiten,  etc.,  ad  seq. 


269 


SECTION   VI. 

Scriptural  examination  of  the  above  theory. — "  The  Twelve  Apostles." — These,  if  equal, 
must  each  have  a  sejiarate  chain. — Denied  by  Prelatists. — Yet  cannot  agree  as  to 
whom  the  honor  of  starting  the  chain  belongs. — Creed  of  Pius  IV. — ^Dr.  Hook. — 
Rev.  A.  B.  Chapin. — St.  Peter. — St.  Paul. — St.  John. — St.  James,  etc. — Starting  of 
the  chain  as  an  alleged  fact. — Dr.  Stone. — Mode  of,  by  "  laying  on  of  hands." — The 
first  links. — Bishops  McCoskrey  and  Mcllvaine. — Positive  evidence  indispensable. — 
Tested  by  its  application,  1st,  to  Matthias. — Fallacy  of. — 2d,  to  Barnabas. — Bishop 
Mcllvaine  versus  the  Evangelist  Luke. 

So  mucli,  then,  for  the  up-hilledness  of  an  attempt  to  trace  one's 
prelatico-"  spiritual  descent"  back  to  Peter  and  Paul.  Perhaps, 
however,  we  may  find  a  firmer  foot-hold  "  at  the  beginning'^  of  the 
chain.  Waiving  further  preliminaries,  therefore,  we  come  now  to 
subject  the  alleged  uninterrupted  succession  of  Prelatists  "  from 
the  apostles's  times"  to  the  test, 

I.  Of  "  Holy  ScRiPTUEE." 

It  will  of  course  be  conceded,  that  the  original  college  of  the 
apostles  formed  the  first  "  twelve"  links  in  the  alleged  chain. 
Thus,  Bishop  McCoskrej  :  "  The  apostles  were  raised  up  to  the 
highest  grade  by  the  Savior,  as  he  was  about  returning  to  heaven. 
They  then  stood  as  his  representatives,  and  arranged  the  ministry 
after  the  model  which  he  himself  had  followed,"  viz.,  the  Jewish 
priesthood.* 

Now,  we  have  proved  that  the  powers  of  "  the  twelve"  were 
equal,  that  is,  that  no  one  had  a  primacy  over  the  other,  or  supre- 
premacy  over  the  Church,  f  Will  it  not  thence  follow  that  there 
ought  to  be  twelve  separate  chains^  all  equally  "  fastened  to  the 
throne  of  God,  and  preserved  as  inviolate  as  the  line  of  the  descent 
from  Adam"  ?  What  good  reason  can  be  assigned  why  "  the 
honor  and  riches  of  the  patrimony"  should  be  confined  to  some 
one  or  two  of  the  n  amber  ? 

And  yet,  such  is  the  result  of  the  practical  working  of  the  Pre- 
latico-Episcopal  scheme.  Nor  is  this  all.  Its  advocates  are  not 
agreed  among  themselves,  to  whom  belongs  the  honor  of  com- 
mencing the  unbroken  chain  !  The  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  declares 
"  the  Roman  bishop"  to  be  "  the  successor  of  Peter,  the  prince  of 
the  apostles  and  the  vicar  of  Christ."  And  Bellarmine  positively 
affirms,  that  "the  right  of  succession  in  the  popes  of  Pome  is 
founded  in  this,  that  Peter,  by  Christ's  appointment,  placed  his 
seat  at  Rome,  and  there  remained  till  his  death."f     On  the  other 

*  Bishop  McCoskrey's  SermoUj  Episcopal  Bishops  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  p. 
12.     1842. 
t  See  Part  II.,  pp.  116-123.  J  Bellarmine,  Lib.  IL,  c.  1. 


270 

hand,  Dr.  Ilook  and  others  affirm  that  there  is  not  a  bishop,  priest, 
or  deacon  who  cannot,  if  he  please^  trace  his  own  spiritual  descent 
from  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,*^*  while  the  Rev.  A.  B.  Chapin  insists 
that  the  Anglican  succession  is  derived,  "not,  as  is  often  said, 
from  Home,"  but  from  "  Ephesus,"  of  whom  the  apostle,  "St. 
John,"  was  the  fountain-head.f 

Here,  then,  are  no  less  than  three  apostolical  competitors  for  the 
honor  of  "  fastening"  this  chain,  "  at  its  beginning,"  to  the  throne 
of  God !  Should  it,  however,  appear  that  Eome,  alone^  through 
her  alleged  viceregent,  St.  Peter,  is,  de  facto,  the  channel  through 
which  courses  the  mighty  chain,  it  will  follow  that  the  "  spiritual 
descent"  of  the  continuous  links,  both  Anglican  and  American, 
can  only  reach  back  "  to  the  throne  of  God"  THROUGH  HER 
TURBlb  WATERS  !  We  must,  however,  hold  the  evidence  of 
this  in  reserve  for  a  future  page. 

In  starting  this  chain,  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  in  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  informs  us,  that  "it  is  evident  unto  all  men  read- 
ing holy  Scripture,  that  from  the  apostles's  times,  there  have  been 
these  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  bishops,  priests  and 
deacons,"  set  apart  thereto  "  with  imposition  of  hands,"  etc. 
Speaking  of  this  "  Preface,"  that  learned  and  distinguished  divine 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Stone,  of  Brook- 
lyn, L.  I.,  in  his  recent  work,  entitled,  "  The  Church  Universal," 
says,  that  "it  is  evident,"  "as  a  matter  of  fact,^'  "that  there  has 
been  a  trine  ministry"  in  the  Church  of  Christ  "  ever  since  the 
apostles's  time."  And,  he  adds,  "  for  this,  from  the  heart,  I  con- 
tend.":}: But,  though  so  "  evident,"  my  worthy  friend  makes  no 
further  allusion  to  the  connecting  links  in  the  chain  than  by  a  re- 
ference to  "  the  occasional  appointment,  as  in  the  case  of  Timothy, 
Titus,  and  others,  of  general  supervisors  over  large  territories," 
etc.,  "  with  power  of  ordaining  to  the  ministry."§ 

Others,  however,  speak  more  definitely  on  this  point.  Bishop 
McCoskrey  says  of  the  apostles,  that  "  one  of  the  very  first  acts 
tJiey  did,  after  they  received  the  apostolic  office,  was,  to  transfer 
the  very  same  power  they  had  received  from  Christ ;  and  he  adds, 
as  "few  persons  are  willing  to  reject  the  'Acts  of  the  Apostles,' 
they  must  recognize  the  transfer  of  apostolic  authority  to  Mat- 
thias." "If so,"  he  continues,  "the  position  is  established,  that 
the  apostles  had  successors."!     Yes.     "  IF  so." 

Bishop  Mcllvaine  also  furnishes  us  with  the  following,  to  the 
same  effisct.  He  says,  "  That  the  ojjiGe  of  the  apostles  did  descend 
from  them  to  successors ;  that  it  was  communicated  to  others  BY 
THE  HANDS  of  those  who  rcccived  it  from  the  Lord,  is  manifest." 

*  Two  Sermons  on  the  Church  and  the  Establishment,  by  Dr.  Hook,  pp.  7,  8. 
t  The  Primitive  Church,  by  A.  B.  Chapin,  New  Haven.     1842.     pp.  291,  292. 
X  The  Church  Universal,  etc.,  p.  132.     New  York:  Houel  &  McCoy.     1846. 
§   lb.,  p.  13.3. 

II  Bishop   McCoskrey's  Episcopal  Bishops  the  ."Successors  of  the  Apostles,  pp.    12, 
14, 17. 


271 

And  he  instances  "  Matthias  and  Barnabas,"  with  "  Timothy,"  etc., 
in  proof.* 

The  "  unbroken  succession,"  then,  "  at  its  leg  inning  ^''^  is  "  fast- 
ened to  the  throne  of  God,"  thus :  God — Christ — the  apostle  Peter, 
or  Peter  and  Paul,  or  John — Matthias,  Barnabas,  Timothj,  etc. 

But,  we  submit.  Each  of  the  above  links  from  the  apostles,  as 
so  many  alleged  "facts,"  whether  pope,  prelate,  priest,  or  deacon, 
who,  perchance,  may  "  please"  to  "  seek  their  register  among  those 
that  are  reckoned  by  genealogy,"  must  addnce  proof  positive  that 
"  their  names  are  found"  there  ;  or,  as  in  the  case  of  those  Aaronic 
claimants  of  similar  honors — *'  the  children  of  liebaiah,  of  Koz, 
and  of  Barzillai,"  they  must  be  pronounced  '"'•  'polluted^''  and  be 
'*  PUT  FROM  THE  PRIESTHOOD  "!  Nor  is  this  all.  If,  perchance, 
upon  examination,  the  boasted  catalogue  of  the  prelatico-sacerdo- 
tal  line  should  be  found  without  a  duly  authenticated  head — with- 
out that  FIRST  LINK  by  which  the  whole  chain  is  declared  to  be 
"  fastened  to  the  throne  of  God,"  Avhat  then?  We  may,  perhaps, 
without  presumption,  assume  the  title  of  Episcopio- Presbyterians^ 
and  propose  an  exchange  of  position  of  the  parties  in  this  contro- 
versy ;  the  prelatical  denunciators  of  others  as  schismatical  intrud- 
ers into  the  ministry,  being  found  the  only  true  antitypjes  to  those 
intruders  into  the  priestly  ofhce  and  rebels  against  Moses  and 
Aaron — Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  whom  God  destroyed  in  the 
camp  of  Israel.  Proceed  we  now  therefore,  to  an  examination  of 
the  alleged  claim  in  behalf  of, 

1. — MattTiias^  as  the  first  link  in  the  above  chain.  Let  it  now 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  above  writers  declare  that  it  "  is  mani- 
fest^'' "  as  a  matter  of  fact,"  that  the  apostles  "transferred"  to  Mat- 
thias, by  the  laying  on  of  their  hands,  "the  very  same  power  they 
had  received  from  Christ." 

(1.)  First,  then.  Of  the  power  transferred.  To  determine  what 
it  was,  depends,  of  course,  on  the  precise  powers  of  the  apostles 
themselves  at  the  time  of  its  alleged  transference.  The  prelatical 
hypothesis  as  above,  must  suppose  that  they  were  complete  and 
perfect — a  transfer  of  "  the  very  same  power,"  which  "  they  re- 
ceived from  Christ."  Otherwise,  Matthias  could  not  have  been 
placed  on  a  footing  of  equality  with  the  others.  On  this  subject. 
Bishop  McCoskrey  informs  us,  that  the  apostles  "  were  not  to  enter 
upon  the  duties  of  the  office  which  Christ  had  transferred  to  them, 
until  they  had  received  in  a  full  and  open  manner,  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Prior  to  the  ascension  of  the  Savior,  they  had  received  the  power 
to  act  as  apostles,  but  not  the  gift  necessary  to  fit  them  for  dis- 
charging the  duties  connected  wdth  the  office.  The  former, 
namely,  the  power,  was  given  when  Christ  breathed  on  them  and 
said.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost — the  latter,  namely,  the  gifts,  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost.     Hence  they  were  commanded  not  to  de- 

*  Argument  for  the  Apostolic  ^u  cession,  p.  9. 


v*^ 


272 

part  from  Jerusalem,  but  to  wait  for  the  promise  of  the  Father, 
which,  saith  Christ,  je  have  heard  of  me."*  But,  the  distinction 
here  made  between  the  "j?6»wer"  and  the  "  gift ;"  on  what  authori- 
ty, wc  ask,  is  it  based  ?  If  it  was  official  power  conferred  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  the  former  case,  Avhy  not  in  the  latter  ?  We  refer 
the  reader  to  Part  II.,  pp.  110-11-i  of  this  Treatise,  for  the  scriptu- 
ral proof,  that  the  powers  apostolic  were  cumulative^  having  been 
marked  by  three  difl'erent  stages  of  development,  and  of  which, 
the  last, — the  Pentecostal  gift  of  tongues  by  the  Holy  Ghost — was 
the  completion  of  their  powers.  Then  too,  official  power,  without 
either  the  qualification  to  discharge,  or  the  authority  to  execute  it, 
what,  we  ask,  is  it  worth  ?  And  yet,  even  according  to  the  Bish- 
op's own  showing,  the  appointment  of  Matthias  tromsjnred  before 
the  da}^  of  Pentecost,  and  in  direct  violation  of  the  command  of 
Christ.  On  Ms  hypothesis,  therefore,  it  was  premature,  and  hence, 
unauthorized.  On  ows^  he  could  have  been  made,  at  most,  but 
Jialf  an  apostle.  Prelatists  are  welcome  to  either  horn  of  this  di- 
lemma.    Then, 

(2.)  As  to  the  alleged  mode  of  Matthias's  designation  tolas  office, 
namely,  "  hy  the  hands'^  of  those  who  "received  it  from  the  Lord." 
Yes,  the  procreating  power,  indispensable  to  the  valid  transmission 
of  the  apostolate,  perishes,  except  as  it  is  preserved  through  this 
all-potent  channel.  Nor  must  we  forget  that  three  consecrators  are 
indispensable,  (agreeably  to  the  alleged  apostolical  canon,)  to 
give  validity  to  the  act.  Which  three  of  "  the  eleven,"  then,  were 
concerned  in  this  transaction  ?  Was  it  the  three  "  pillars,'"  Peter, 
James,  and  John  ?  We  are  assured  that,  any  "  bishop,  priest,  or  dea- 
con, if  he  please,"  can  answer.  As  we  have  shown.  Archbishop 
Potter,  as  one  of  them,  thought  differently.  And,  no  marvel. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  it  "  is  manifest"  from  the  inspired  record,  that, 
though  Peter  proposed  this  measure,  yet  the  whole  preliminary 
process  was  transferred  to,  and  was  carried  out  by  the  "  men  and 
brethren"  composing  the  "  hundred  and  twent}^"  disciples,''  and 
that  Peter  and  his  ten  apostolic  colleagues  united  with  them  in 
referring  the  final  decision  of  their  nominations  to  the  Lord.^  Ergo, 
Matthias  was  not  appointed  by  the  apostles.  Then,  as  to  "the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands"  in  this  transaction,  it  "is  manifest"  from  the  sacred 
narrative,  that  a  mode,  entirely  different,  both  in  nature  and  in 
form,  was  employed.  Matthias's  election  was  decided  by  "  lot."* 
On  the  prelatical  hj-jjothesis,  therefore,  of  the  ordination  or  conse- 
cration of  each  consecuitive  link  in  the  chain  by  the  imposition  of 
hands  of  three  consecrators,  as  indispensable  to  the  conveyance  of 
the  sacred  fluid,  grace,  office  or  functions  aposfolical ;  how,  we  ask,  is 
the  omission  of  any  specific  directions  to  that  end  by  our  Lord  on  the 
one  hand ;  or,  if  it  did  occur,  the  silence  of  the  sacred  penman  ia 

(1)  Gal.  2  :  9.     (2)  Acts  1  :  15,  16.     (3)  Acts  1  :  23,  24.     (4)  Acts  1  :  26. 
*  Sermon,  Episcopal  Bishops  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  pp  10, 11. 


273 

regard  to  any  sucli  action  on  the  other,  to  be  accounted  for,  when 
both  the  circumcision  of  Timothy  by  St.  Paul,  which  was  a  mere 
matter  of  expediency,  and  his  ordination  by  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  presbytery,  are  recorded  with  the  utmost  precision  ? 
We  leave  those  "  who  say  they  are  apostles,"  to  reconcile  these  in- 
congruities, as  best  they  may.  And,  if  it  may  '*  please"  any  one 
of  them,  after  what  we  have  here  and  elsewhere  said  on  this  sub- 
ject, to  show  that  Matthias  rather  than  Paul,  has  the  better  claim 
to  the  apostolic  vacancy  created  by  the  fall  of  Judas,  whether  in 
the  Church  on  earth  or  in  heaven,  we  think  they  will  have  to  do 
it  by  other  records  than  those  of  Luke,  John,  or  Paul. 
Pass  we  now,  to  test  the  prelatical  claims  in  behalf  of, 

2. — Barnabas,  as  the  second  alleged  link  in  the  golden  chain. , 
It  "  is  manifest,"  Bishop  Mcllvaine  assures  us,  that  "  the  office  of 
the  apostles"  "  was  communicated"  to  Barnabas,  "  Jy"  their 
"  ha)idsy*  Surely,  then,  the  Bishop  might  have  furnished  us  with 
what  is  so  important  a  desideratum  in  the  premises, — the  names  of 
his  three  consecrators.  We  have  before  us,  however,  a  more  in- 
falhble  guide.  Luke  informs  us,  that  upon  him  were  laid  the 
hands  of  three  persons.  But,  were  they  apostles  ?  Nay,  verily, 
they  were  the  ^^ prophets  and  teacher i''  of  the  Church  at  Antioch, 
namely,  Simeon,  Lucius,  and  Manaen.'  Upon  a  peradventure, 
however,  that  prelatists  should  claim  that  these  were  apostles,  how, 
we  ask,  are  we  to  reconcile  such  a  claim  with  their  scheme  of  dio- 
cesan episcojjacy,  which,  so  far  from  allowing  several  bishops  to 
belong  to  a  single  church,  is  based  on  the  hj-pothesis  of  only  one 
bishop  over  many  churches  in  a  province  or  state,  as  the  case  may 
be  ?  But,  Barnabas  is  called  an  apostle.  On  this  subject,  we  refer 
the  reader  to  Part  II.,  pp.  131-132  of  this  Treatise  ;  only  adding 
in  this  place,  that  in  his  epistle,  which  is  received  as  genuine,  but 
not  canonical,  Barnabas  disclaims  apostolic  authority;  and  by  the 
early  fathers,  though  sometimes  styled  an  apostle,  he  is  ranked 
among  companions  of  the  apostles  or  apostolical  men.f 

In  the  order  of  the  remaining  alleged  links,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Stone, 
speaking  of  the  apostles,  tells  us,  that  "  one  of  their  first  acts  was, 
to  originate,  by  prayer  and  the  laying  on  of  hands,  an  order  of 
deacons ;"  and  that  "  another"  act  of  "  frequent  occurrence  was 
the  ordaining  of  elders,"  or  "presbyters;"  (all  of  which  is  scriptu- 
rally  true ;)  "  and  a  third  was,  the  occasional  appointment,  as  in 
the  case  of  Timothy,  Titus,  and  others,  of  general  supervisors  over 
large  territories,  who,  whatever  the  powers  and  prerogatives  of  the 
other  orders  may  have  been,  certainly  had,  for  themselves,  the 
power  of  ordaining  to  the  ministry.     Thus  much,  at  least,"  he 

(1)  Acts  13  :  1-3 

♦  Argument  for  the  Apostolic  Succession,  p.  9. 

t  Literary  History  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  244.  London  ;  Seely,  Bumside,  and 
Seely.     1845. 

18 


.  274 

adds,  "  is  plain  on  the  very  face  of  the  Scriptures."*  Now,  there 
is  in  these  extracts  from  the  work  of  my  learned  and  worthy 
friend,  to  say  the  least,  a  nearer  approach  to  a  compliance  with  the 
canon  apostolic  in  its  bearing  on  their  "  very  first  acts,"  than  that 
affirmed  by  Bishops  Mcllvaine  and  McCoskrey.  That  canon 
enacts,  that  '^  ordination  per  saltu7n  does  not  convey  the  grace."t 
The  above  order,  however,  provides  for  the  ascendhig  scale — first, 
a  deacon,  then  a  priest,  then  a  bishop.  Still,  to  say  nothing  of 
those  "  general  supervisors  over  large  territories,"  (namely,  dioce- 
san bishops)  to  whom  the  Doctor  alludes  by  the  very  equivocal 
phrase,  "  and  others,":}:  we  are  not  informed  as  to  whether  even 
Timothy  and  Titus  "purchased"  to  themselves  the  better  degree 
of  the  apostleship,  agreeably  to  the  requisitions  of  the  above 
canon. 


SECTION  vn. 

Same  subject  continued. — 3.  Timothy — Dr.  Stone. — Bishop  Griswold. — Positively  af- 
firms his  consecration  by  "  several"  apostles,  namely,  the  Ephesian  presbytery. — Ar- 
gument in  support  of. — Fallacy  of — The  apostolicity  of  the  Ephesian  presbytery 
denied  by  Bishop  Hobart. — His  interpretation  of  Mcr,  and  Aia. — Fallacy  of. — The 
question  fundamental  in  these  premises  is,  was  Paul  personally  identified  with  the 
Ephesian  presbytery  in  Timothy's  ordination  ? — Proof  that  he  was  not. — Conclu- 
sion.— A  choice  between  two  absurdities. — 4.  Titus. — Remarks  on. 

Pass  we  now  to  the  next  link. 

3.  Timothy. — Kegarding  the  mode  of  the  consecration  of  Timo- 
thy, as  it  is  so  "  plain  on  the  very  face  of  Scripture,"  Dr.  Stone 
says  nothing.  He  considered  it,  we  suppose,  "too  notorious  to  re- 
quire proof"  Not  so  Bishop  Grisv/old.  Having  informed  us  that 
"  one  of  the  first,  or  highest  order,  was  not  ordained  by  a  single 
person,"  but  that  "  several,  holding  the  apostolic  office,  united  in 
giving  such  orders,"  he  affirms,  "  Timothy  himself  had  been  so 
ordained."§  But,  not  unless  "  the  presbytery"  who  ordained  him 
were  all  bishops  in  the  prelatical  sense  ?  And  such.  Bishop  Gris- 
wold claims  that  body  to  have  been.  He  tells  us,  "  it  is  most  pro- 
bable that  a  presbytery  then"  [speaking  of  the  apostolic  age]  "  was 
a  college  of  bishops^  and  that  several  of  them  were  present,  and 
assisted  at  the  ordination  of  Timothy."  Here  then,  we  have  a  mat- 
ter that  is  so  "  plain  on  the  very  face  of  Scripture,"  that  it  is 

"  MOST  PROBABLE  !" 

The  argument  of  the  Bishop  in  support  of  the  above  theory  is  as 

♦  The  Church  Universal,?   13,3      1846. 
t  Dr.  Field,  quoted  by  Dr.  Duffield  on  Episcopacy,  p.  257. 

}  But  referring,  as  we  suppose,  to  Barnahas,  .indronicus  and  Junia,  ^polios,  Epapro- 
ditus,  etc.,  respecting  whom,  see  Part  I.,  pp.  127-132. 

J  Bishop  Griswold  on  the  Apostolical  Succession.     Tract  No.  I.,  p.  9. 


275 

follows :  First.  He  informs  us  that  the  terms  "  elders,  presbyters 
and  priests,"  are  "all  words  of  the  same  meaning."*  Then,  second, 
that  "  the  apostles  are  sometimes  called  presbyters."  Therefore, 
third,  the  presbytery  which  ordained  Timothy  "  was  a  college  of 
apostles." 

Now,  to  say  nothing  of  the  palpable  incongruity  between  the 
conversion  of  the  Ephesian  presbytery  into  a  college  of  apostles 
upon  the  strength  of  the  import  of  a  mere  name,  and  the  current 
denial  of  prelatists  that  ecclesiastical  functions  or  offices  can  be  de- 
termined by  mere  names  or  titles  alone,  in  addition  to  what  we 
have  offered  in  proof  that  the  terms  "  elder,"  TTpeafSvrepog,  denoted 
age,f  and  that,  being  a  generic  term  of  office,  it  might,  and  did, 
comprehend  different  species  or  orders,  and  that  hence,  an  apostle — 
for  example,  Peter — might  apply  it  to  himself;  also,  that  it  was 
principally  used  during  the  apostolic  age,  interchangeably  with  the 
title  emaKOTTog,  bishop  or  overseer,  as  denoting  the  same  office  ;  we 
now  affirm,  in  reply  to  the  above  statement  of  Bishop  Griswold  re- 
garding it,  that,  of  all  the  advocates  for  the  sacerdotal  or  PiiiESTLY 
character  of  the  Christian  ministry,  not  one  can  be  found  to  ad- 
vance it  in  more  glaring  terms.  For,  if  the  terms  "  elders,  pres- 
byters, and  priests,"  are  "all  words  of  the  same  meaning,"  and  the 
fact,  that  the  apostles  having  sometimes  called  themselves  elders, 
made  the  Ephesian  presbytery  "  a  college  of  apostles,"  it  follows 
that,  having  received  "  the  very  same  power"  from  "  the  twelve" 
which  they  received  from  Christ,  (inasmuch  as  that  power  con- 
sisted, as  is  alleged,  of  the  transfer  of  Christ's  ojioe  to  them  which 
he  was  leaving,)  they  must  have  exercised,  with  them,  the  same 
functions,  priestly,  which  Christ  exercised.     But  we  deny, 

1.  That  the  words  elder  or  presbyter  and  priest,  are  synonymous. 
No  two  words  are  more  dissimilar.  The  word  ngeafivTepog,  pres- 
byter or  elder,  denotes  one  of  the  qualifiGations,  namely,  maturity 
of  age,  as  befitting  one  filling  the  office  of  either  an  apostle  or  a 
bishop,  and  hence  is  used  in  common  by  both.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  name  '  IsQsvg  (hiereus),  a  priest,  from  '  lepog  (hieros),  sacred,  de- 
notes a  person  consecrated  to  God,  to  offer  sacrifices  for  sins.'  As 
such,  it  is  applied  to  Melchisedek,  a  patriarchal  priest,"  to  the  Le- 
vitical  priests,^  to  a  heathen  priest  of  Jupiter,*  to  the  Jewish  high 
priest,*  to  Jesus  Christ,  as  the  great  antitypal  high  priest  after  the 
order  of  Melchisedek,*  and  it  is  employed  to  denote  the  great  body 
of  the  redeemed  on  earth  and  in  heaven,  as  forming  a  "  holy  priest- 
hood, to  offer  up  the  spiritual  sacrifices  of  prayer  and  praise,  ac- 
ceptable to  God  by  Jesus  Christ."'     But,  in  no  single  instance^  we 

(1)  Heb.  5  :  1.  (2)  lb.  7  :  1.  (3)  Matt.  8:4;  12  :  4.  .5  ;  Luke  1  :  5,  etc.  (4)  Acts  14  :  13.  (5)  Acti 
6  :  24.  (6)  See  Heb.  7  :  21.  (7)  Compare  1  Pet.  2:5;  with  Rev.  1  :  6  ;  v.  10  ;  20  :  6.  See  also  Park- 
hurst's  Greek  Lexicon,  on  tlie  word. 

*  Bishop  Griswold  oa  the  Apostolical  Succession,  p.  8. 

f  np£<r/3ur£f)(oi/,  from  irptof)vsy  an  old  man.     Bishop  Ho'oart's  Apology,  p.  154.     Marg. 


276 

affirm,  is  it  ever  applied  to  eitlier  order  of  the  New  Testament 
ministry.     Nor  is  this  all.     We  ask,  How  are  we, 

2.  To  reconcile  tlie  hypothesis,  as  above,  of  Bishop  Griswold 
as  the  patriarchal  representative  of  Low  Churchism,  Avith  the 
denial,  by  prelatists  generally,  that  the  Ephesian  "presbytery," 
whatever  were  their  powers,  had  any  right,  independently^  to  or- 
dain ?  Thus,  Bishop  Hobart :  "  It  is  undeniable,"  says  he,  "  that 
whatever  the  presbytery  were,  St.  Paul  himself  was  the  chief  agent, 
the  actual  ordainer  of  Timothy ;  he  alone  conveyed  the  ministerial 
authority."  "The  presbytery,  whosoever  they  were,  only  asso- 
ciated with  him  as  concurring  in  the  work."* 

Leaving  prelatists  then  to  reconcile  these  conflicting  theories  of 
Bishops  Griswold  and  Hobart  in  the  shortest  way  they  can,  we 
observe,  that  the  argument  advanced  in  support  of  this  latter  hy- 
pothesis is  the  following :  "  Where  the  presbytery  is  named 
(1  Tim.  4  :  14),  the  preposition  of  concurrence,  juera" — with — "is 
used;  Where  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  St.  Paul  is  mentioned 
(2  Tim.  1  :  6),  the  preposition  cJ<a" — Ijy — "  denoting  the  efficient  or 
instrumental  cause,  is  used."f  The  words  \it~a  and  (Jm,  therefore, 
are  to  be  understood  as  placed  in  opposition — 6ia,  Jy,  as  denoting 
the  instrumental  cause ;  \iEra,  with^  that  of  mere  concurrence. 
And,  this  meaning  of  the  two  words,  we  are  assured  by  another 
writer,  is  supported  "on  the  authority  of  the  best  lexicons  of  the 
language. ":{: 

Take,  then,  in  illustration,  the  following.  "It  is  easier  for  a 
camel  to  go  through  (dca)  the  eye  of  a  needle,  than,"  etc. — Matt, 
19  :  24.  "  Jesus  went  through  \6ta)  the  cornfields." — Mark  2  :  23. 
"  And  again  he  entered  into  Capernaum  after  (Siaj  many  days." 
— Mark  2:1.  Dr.  Mason  on  these  passages  asks,  does  the  word  dia 
"  emphatically  signify  the  cause  of  the  needle's  eye  ?  of  the  corn- 
fields ?  or  of  the  days  ?  or  the  '  cause'  of  the  camel's  going 
through  the  first  ?  of  our  Lord's  going  through  the  second  ?  or  of 
his  spending  the  third  before  he  went  into  Capernaum ?"§ 

And  of  the  two  words  as  taken  together.  As  it  is  insisted  that 
they  "  must  be  regarded  as  contrasted  with  one  another,"  the  same 
learned  divine  argues,  "  Be  it  so.  I  open  my  New  Testament  and 
read,  that  '  many  signs  and  wonders  were  done  by  (dia')  the  apos- 
tles.'il  Proceeding  in  the  narrative,  I  read  afterwards  that  Paul 
and  i3arnabas  rehearsed  all  things  that  God  had  done  {fiera)  with 
them.^  Now,  as  "  the  passages  relate  to  the  same  subject,"  namely, 
the  miraculous  works  which  God  enabled  his  servants  to  perform, 
and  the  success  with  which  he  crowned  their  ministry,  "the 
terms"  6ia  and  fj-sra  must  be  regarded  as  contrasted  with  one  an- 

♦  Hobart's  Apology,  etc.,  p.  155. 
t  lb.,  p.  155,  note. 

I  Essays  on  Episcopacy,  pp.  53,  54.     Swords  &  Stanford,  New  York,  1806. 
4  Mason  on  Episcopacy,  p.  159. 

II  Acts  2  :  43.       IIoXAa  tc  rtpara  xai  otficta  AIA  Toiv  affooToXtd*  lycvtro. 
TT  '0<ra  6  Qios  titoiri<rt  MET'  avroiv.    Acts  15 :  4. 


277 

other.  And  so,  "  wlien  Peter,  James,  etc.,  wrought  miracles,  they 
did  it  in  virtue  of  an  authoritative  power ;  and  when  Paul  and 
Barnabas  wrought  miracles,  they  had  no  authoritative  or  instru- 
mental agency,  but  merely  expressed  their  approbation  of  what 
God  did  without  them ;  although  the  historian  has  positively  as 
serted  that  he  did  it  with  them.  All  this  from  the  difference  be- 
tween dia  and  nera* 

Still,  the  "  preposition,"  AIA,  which,  the  Doctor  affirms,  "  never 
signifies  the  cause  of  a  thing,"  "  but  expresses  the  idea  of  transition 
or  transmission,"  does  not  "  overthrow  the  argument,"  that  Timo- 
thy might  have  received  his  commission  "  through"  the  hands  of 
Paul,  "  to  the  exclusion  of  the  presbytery."  But  it  follows  that, 
if  he  did  so  receive  it,  while  it  would  yet  remain  to  be  proved 
whether  he  was  ordained  a  bishop  or  not,  we  leave  it  for  prelatists 
to  exonerate  Paul,  as  best  they  may,  from  the  charge  of  a  viola- 
tion of  that  canon  apostolic,  which  makes  the  presence  of  at  least 
three  bishops  indispensable  to  a  valid  ordination. 

The  question  fundamental  in  these  premises,  however,  is  this. 
Was  Fanl  personally  identified  with  the  act  of  Timothy's  ordina- 
tion ?  Amid  the  clouds  of  dust  and  smoke  created  by  the  per- 
petual oscillations  of  prelatical  writers  on  this  subject,  together 
with  their  obvious  perversion  of  the  chronological  relation  of  the 
AIA  of  2  Tim.  1  :  6,  with  that  of  1  Tim.  4  :  14  ;t  the  only  intelli- 
gible construction,  we  affirm,  which  the  passages  taken  together 
will  admit,  is,  first,  that  the  prophecy  which  went  before  on  Timo- 
thy,' designated  him  as  a  fit  person  for  tlie  extraordinary  ministry 
to  which  he  was  called  ;  which  vocation  was  ratified,  second,  "  by 
the  putting  on  of  Paul's  hands,'"  by  which  he  was  endowed  with 
the  gift  "  of  power,  and  of  love,  and  of  a  sound  mind,'"  or  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  a  qualification  for  office,  and  which  he 
is  exhorted  to  "  call  to  remembrance"  and  to  "  stir  up"  within  him. 
And  that,  as  neither  his  designation  to  his  office  by  prophecy,  nor 
his  endowment  of  qualifications /w  the  office,  invested  him  with 
the  office  itself,  it  remained,  third,  that  he  be  publicly  set  apart 
thereto  by  the  imposition  of  hands.  Hence  the  act  of  the  presb}^- 
tery,  as  stated  by  Paul,  1  Tim.  4  :  14.  And,  as  prelatists  say,_  it 
was  an  act  of  concurrence.  But  with  whom,  or  what  ?  Not  with 
the  apostle  Paul  as  "  the  chief  agent,  the  actual  ordainer  of  Tinio- 
thy ;"  but  with  the  ^^ projjhecy''^  which  had  previously  pointed  Mm 
out  to  that  body  as  one  designated  by  the  Holy  Ghost  for  that 
office:— "The  gift,"  given  him,  not  by  Paul,  but,  AIA,  ''hy  pro- 
phecy,'' MET'  "  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery." 
And  when,  in  addition  to  these  considerations,  we  reflect,  that  "  the 
presbytery"  by  whom  Timothy  was  ordained,  was  composed  of 
those  very  "  elders,"  7rpe(T/3vTepot,  whom  Paul  called  to  him  from 

(1)  1  Tim.  4  :  14.     (2)  2  Tim.  1  : 6.     (3)  2  Tim.  1  :  7. 
*  Mason  on  Episcopacy,  pp.  149,  151. 
t  See  Part  II..  pp.  184-186. 


278 

Ephesus  while  at  Miletus,  (and  who  were  the  same  with  bishops, 
a  title,  by  the  way,  never  given  to  the  apostles,)  an  order  which 
Bishop  Hobart,  in  direct  opposition  to  Bishop  Griswold,  insist-s 
was  not  "  a  college  of  apostles,"  but  inferior  to  them  ;*  we  think 
the  conclusion  inevitable,  that  the  ordination  of  Timothy  was 
Presbyterial.  At  least,  of  the  four  alternatives  which  the  above 
several  hypotheses  involve,  namely,  either,  first,  that  of  furnishing 
a  canonical  complement  of  episcopal  consecrators,  by  a  metamor- 
phosing of  the  Ephesian  presbytery  into  a  college  of  apostles,  as 
per  Bishop  Griswold;  or  second,  the  subjecting  Paul  to  the  impu- 
tation of  having  done  violence  to  the  canons  apostolic,  by  his  con- 
secration of  Timothy  single-handed  and  alone ;  or  third,  that  of 
"  the  admission  of  his  double  ordination  by  two  authoritative  pow- 
ers, namely,  by  prophecy,  and  by  the  apostle  Paul ;  and  two  con- 
currences of  the  presbytery,  namely,  one  with  prophecy,  and  one 
with  the  apostle,  "f  as  per  Bishop  Hobart ;  we  think  we  would 
prefer  the  fourth,  as  consequent  upon  our  conclusion,  that  Timothy 
was  ordained  by  "  the  Presbytery."  We  give  it  in  the  words  of 
the  last  named  prelate.  "  Timothy,"  on  this  hj'pothesis,  he  says, 
"  was  ordained  by  the  very  council  of  men  whom  he  was  sent  to 
ordain  and  to  govern."  This  he  pronounces  "  absurd."  Yes,  pre- 
cisely analogous  to  the  "absurdity"  of  the  imposition  of  hands  of 
"  the  prophets  and  teachers  of  the  church  in  Antioch"  iTpon  the 
heads  of  Paul  and  Barnabas.  It  were  an  easy  task  to  show,  that 
the  official  functions  of  Paul  and  Barnabas  as  the  aTToaroXoi,  mes- 
senger's, sent  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  differed  in  no  material  point  from 
those  of  Timothy  as  evayyeXiarov,  an  evangelist.  That  agents 
were  employed  in  both  instances,  in  setting  apart,  by  manual  im- 
position, those  who  were  endowed  with  functions  superior  to  their 
own,  finds  its  solution  in  that  act  of  the  Divine  Sovereignty,  that, 
"  thus  it  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost."  If,  as  Bishop", Hobart 
says,  Timothy  "  was  sent  to  ordain  the  council  of  men"  who  com- 
posed "  the  presbytery"  at  Ephesus,  it  follows  from  his  own  ad- 
mission, that  they  united  with  Paul  in  his  ordination,  and  hence,  that 
they  derived  their  orders  from  unordained,  and  therefore,  unau- 
thorized hands.     But,  no.     Timothy's  hands  had  not  touched  one 


*  Bishop  Hobart  says:  "  Many  of  the  Schoolmen,  and  some  few  divines  even  of  the 
Church  of  England,  are  of  opinion,  that  though  bishops  are  superior  to  presbyters  in  the 
power  of  ordination,  they  are,  nevertheless,  the  same  order,  as  having  the  same  pricst- 
hoo'l.^^  But,  he  adds,  "It  would  be  absurd  to  conclude  from  hence,  that  tliese  divines  be- 
lieved bishops  are  on  an  equality  with  presbyters.  They  contend  on  the  contrary,  that 
bishops  are  invested  by  ordination  or  consecration,  with  that  power  of  ordaining  others 
which  presbyters  have  not.  The  only  thing,  therefore,  essential,  is,  that  bishops  possess, 
by  apostolic  institution,  certain  powers  distinct  from,  and  superior  to,  the  ordinary  pow- 
ers of  presbyters,"  etc.  (Hobart's  Apology  on  Apostolic  Orders,  pp.  117,  118.)  The 
reader  here  should  not  forget  what  we  have  offered  on  tlie  subject  of  the  perfect  equali- 
ty of  bishops  and  presbyters  by  the  first  reformers  of  the  Anglican  Church,  and  onward 
down  to  the  time  of  Archbishop  Laud,  covering  a  period  of  more  than  one  hundred 
years.      (See  the  Preface,  Introduction,  and  Chapter  X.,  of  this  Treatise. 

t  Mason  on  Episcopacy,  p.  156. 


279 

of  the  heads  of  that  "  council  of  men."  There  was  no  such  cross- 
hand  ordination  in  the  matter  as  the  Bishop's  objection  to  our  con- 
clusion insinuates.  That  "  council  of  men"  was  at  Ephesus  hcfore 
Timothy's  ordination,  placed  there  doubtless,  by  apostolic  appoint- 
ment," not  as  "  a  college  of  apostles,"  but  as  "elders,"  -y^jZ  presbyter- 
bishops. 

In  conclusion,  then,  on  this  subject  of  Timothy's  alleged  ordina- 
tion by  apostolic  hands,  we  submit,  that  between  the  conflicting 
hypotheses  of  Bishops  Griswold  and  Hobart  respecting  it,  pre- 
latists  are  left  to  choose  one  of  the  two  following  "  absurdi- 
ties," viz.,  either,  first,  according  to  Bishop  Griswold's  theory, 
which  affirms  that  the  Ephesian  presbytery  was  "  a  college  of 
apostles,"  to  erase  from  their  catalogue  the  second  order  of  their 
hierarchy,  presbyters  or  priests ;  or  second,  according  to  that  of 
Bishop  Hobart,  which  contends  that  they  were  nothing  but  pres- 
byters, to  concede  that  there  is  no  resemblance  between  the  ordi- 
nation of  Timothy  as  the  alleged  model  of  modern  Episcopacy,* 
and  that  of  their  "  form  of  ordaining  or  consecrating  a  bishop," 
which,  as  we  have  shown,  requires  three,  or  at  least  two,  prelates 
to  make  it  valid.     But, 

4,  Titus^  it  is  said,  forms  another  link  in  this  chain.  To  this 
end  is  quoted  Titus  1:5.  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete, 
that  thou  shouldst  ordain  elders  in  every  city  as  I  had  appointed 
thee ;"  in  other  words,  ordained  thee,  say  prelatists.  What,  by 
three  consecrators  ?  and  if  so,  who  were  they  ?  If  not,  it  follows 
that  "Either  Paul  exercised,  on  this  occasion,  his  extraordinary 
power,  and  so  has  set  no  precedent;  or,  if  he  set  a  precedent 
for  ordination  by  a  single  prelate,  Titus  was  no  more  than  a 
presbyter,  and  could  not,  by  himself,  ordain  other  presbyters." 
The  fact  is,  however,  that  the  text  says  nothing  about  ordina- 
tion. Paul,  in  virtue  of  his  apostleship,  "  appointed,"  (that 
is,  "  in  the  sense  of  prescribing,  enjoining,  commanding")  Titus 
to  the  work  assigned  him.  This  word  (Greek,  dtera^anev^  is 
never  used  in  the  New  Testament  "  in  the  sense  of  setting 
apart  to  an  office."  Surely  Felix  did  not  give  the  centu- 
rion his  military  commission  in  the  passage,  "  he  commanded 
(diera^aro)  a  centurion  to  keep  Paul."'  The  nature  of  Titus's  ap- 
pointment was  precisely  analogous  to  that  of  Paul  to  the  Corin- 
thians :  "  As  God  hath  distributed  to  every  man ;  as  the 
Lord  hath  called  every  one,  so  let  him  walk,  and  so  ordain  I, 
(Siaraaaonai)  direct,  enjoin  I,  in  all  the  churches."'f  So  much  for 
this  link. 

(1)  Acts  14  :  23.     (-2)  Acts  24  :  23.     (3)  1  Cor.  7  :  17. 

*  Bishop  Griswold,  in  common  with  the  advocates  of  Protestant  Prelacy,  generally, 
on  this  subject,  says  :  "  Bishops  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  claim  no  other  au- 
thority than  was  given  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  and  by  thena  ♦'xercised.''"  (Griswold  oa 
the  Apostolic  Office,  p.  9,  note.) 

t  Mason  on  Episcopacy,  pp.  170,  171. 


280 


SECTION    VIII. 

Of  diocesan  Episcopacy. — Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  seven  apocalyptic  "  angels"  alleged 
to  have  been  diocesan  bishops. — Fallacy  of,  in  regard  to  Timothy  and  Titus. — 
Angels  of  the  seven  Churches. — Dr.  Henry  More,  Joseph  Mede,  Dr.  Fulke,  and 
Bishop  Stillingfleet  on — Additional  proof  of  the  fallacy  of — Examination  and  refu- 
tation of  Bishop  McCroskrey's  use  of  Christ's  commendation  of  the  Ephesian 
"  angel,"  for  having  "  tried  them  which  say  they  are  apostles,  and  are  not,"  etc. — 
Conclusion. 

But,  Timothy  and  Titus,  togetlier  with  the  "  angels,"  or  "  stars," 
of  the  seven  Asiatic  Churches,  were  diocesan  bishops.  May  we 
ask,  then,  where  is  the  correspondence  between  their  spheres  of 
action  as  the  alleged  successors  of  the  apostles,  being  limited  to  a 
province  or  a  state,  and  that  of  "the  twelve,"  whose  "field"  was 
"  the  world"  ? 

This,  however,  aside.  Eegarding  the  alleged  diocesan  Epis- 
copacy of  Timoth}^  and  Titus,  we  refer  the  reader  to  what  we  have 
ofl'ered  on  this  subject  in  Part  IL,  pp.  151-154,  of  this  Treatise. 

1.  In  reference  to  the  seven  apocalyptic  angels,  in  addition  to 
what  we  have  already  explained,  the  import  of  their  allegorical 
names,*  showing  that  (in  opposition  to  the  prelatical  theory,  which 
affirms  that  they  find  in  them  "  absolute  demonstration"  that  they 
"  are  constantly  applied  in  the  Book  of  Revelation,  to  single  men, 
and  never  to  a  society  or  number  of  men")f  they  denote  "  the 
ministers  of  the  churches,  without  discrimination"  either  of  offi- 
cial rank  or  of  character,  and  hence,  that  they  refer  to  and  speak 
of  them  as  a  body  ;  we  present  the  following  Episcopal  authorities 
in  our  suj^port :  "  Methinks,"  says  Dr.  Henry  More,  "  it  is  ex- 
tremely harsh  conceit  that  these  seven  stars  are  merely  the  seven 
bishops  of- any  particular  churches  of  Asia.  Such  high  represen- 
tations cannot  be.  appropriated  to  any  seven  particular  churches 
whatsoever."  And  so,  he  adds,  "by  angels,  according  to  the 
apocalyptic  style,  all  the  agents  under  their  presidency  are  repre- 
sented or  insinuated."^  "  The  great  and  justly-celebrated  Joseph 
Mede  observes,  that  angels  are  put  for  the  nations  over  which  they 
are  thought  to  preside  ;"  for  example,  "  the  four  angels  (Eev.  9  ;  14) 
signify  so  many  sultanies  or  kingdoms."§  And  Dr.  Fulke  says, 
that  "  St.  John,  by  the  angels  of  the  churches,  meaneth,  not  all  that 
should  wear  on  their  heads  miters,  but  them  that  are  faithful  mes- 
sengers of  God's  word.  They  are  called  the  angels  of  the  churches 
because  they  are  God's  messenger sJ^l  Finally,  "the  famous  Stil- 
lingfleet, in  his  Irenicum^  asks  concerning  these  angels,  "  If,  in  the 

*  See  Part  II.,  p.  130. 

t  Essays  on  Episc.  Cyprian,  No.  III.,  p.  72. 

j  More's  Exposition  of  the  Seven  Churches.     Works,  p.  724. 

4   In  Apoc.  Book  III.     Works,  p.  471. 

II  Quoted  from  Ayton's  Original  Constitution  of  the  Christian  Church. 


281 

prophetick  style  any  unity  may  be  set  down  by  way  of  represen- 
tation of  a  multitude,  what  evidence  can  be  brought  from  the 
name,  that  by  it  some  particular  person  must  be  understood  ?"  And 
a  little  further  on,  he  says,  "  K  many  things  in  the  epistles  be 
direct  to  the  angels,  but  yet  so  as  to  concern  the  whole  body, 
then  of  necessity,  the  angel  must  be  taken  as  the  representative  of 
the  whole  body,  and  then,  why  not  the  word  angel  be  taken  by 
way  of  representation  of  the  body  itself;  either  of  the  whole 
Church,  or,  Avhich  is  far  more  probable,  of  the  concessus,  or  order 
of  presbyters  in  that  Church?"  and  he  adds,  "  we  see  what  miser- 
able, unaccountable  arguments  those  are  which  are  brought  for 
any  kind  of  government,  from  metaphorical  or  ambiguous  expres- 
sions or  names  promiscuously  used."* 

2.  But  these  "  angels,"  it  is  contended,  were  diocesan  bishops. 
The  hypothesis  assumed  is,  that  the  phrase,  "  the  Church,"  as 
"  the  Church  of  Ephesus,"  "  Smyrna,"  etc,  implies  a  plurality  of 
congregations  and  presbyters  in  one  city,  and  Ephesus  is  referred 
to  in  illustration,  where,  it  is  said,  "  there  were  several  presbyters 
when  Paul  bade  them  farewell  at  Miletus,  which  was  many  years 
before  the  book  of  Eevelation  was  written ;  and  that,  where  there 
were  several  presbyters,  it  is  fair  to  conclude  there  were  several 
congregations."f 

True.  But  we  ask,  is  it  as  fair  to  conclude  hence,  that  these 
presbj^ters  and  congregations  were  under  Episcopal  jurisdiction  in 
the  prelatical  sense,  simply  because,  forsooth,  years  after,  an  epistle 
was  addressed  to  one  of  the  number  in  that  city  under  the  title  of 
angel  ?  Just  as  much  so,  we  insist,  as  though,  in  the  place  of  "the 
angel  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus,"  one  of  the  clergy  of  the  Col- 
legiate Reformed  Dutch  Church,  or  Trinity  Church  parish,  in  New 
York  city,  both  of  which  are  composed  of  several  congregations, 
under  the  supervision  of  several  ministers,  had  invested  him  with 
superior  official  functions  over  the  others.  For,  whatever  may  be 
said  of  the  circumstantial  differences,  ecclesiastically,  of  the  cases 
here  referred  to,  even  the  rector  of  Trinity  Church  parish,  as  "  the 
angel"  thereof,  fills  but  the  rank  of  a  presbyter^  in  common  with 
liis  six  or  seven  assistants. 

It  hence  follows,  that  each  Church  within  itself^  may  embrace  a 
number  of  these  angels.  This^  fact  may  be  known  and  read  of 
all  men  in  the  organization  of  every  Presbyterian  Church 
throughout  the  United  States — yea,  throughout  the  world. 
Our  warrant  in  thus  addressing  them,  is  founded  in  the  apoc- 
alyptic application  of  the  singular  and  plural  pronouns  thou 
and  you  interchangeably  to  "  the  angel  of  the  Church  in 
Smyrna,"'  as  denotive  of  the  collective  ministry  of  said  Church — 
-ngtOtivreQOL  vel  e-toiconoi,  Presbyter-bishops,  comprehensive  of  the 

(1)  Rev.  2  :  8-10 
♦  See  Dr.  Mason  on  Episcopacy,  pp.  133-137. 

t  Bishop  Mcllvaine's  Argument  for  the  Apostolic  Succession,  p.  10  See  also  Dr. 
Snodgrass,  p.  165. 


282 

double  class  of  those  wlio  rule  and  labor  in  word  and  doctrine, 
and  those  who  govern  only,' 

Finally,  speaking  of  "  the  angel  of  the  Churcli  of  Ephesus," 
who  was  "  particularly  commended  for  having  tried  them  which 
say  they  are  apostles  and  are  not,  and  had  found  them  liars ;" 
Bishop  McCoskrey  asks :  "  But  how  could  this  be  done,  if  he 
were  not  an  apostle  himself?  Or  why  should  he  try  and  examine 
the  pretensions  of  impostors  if  he  had  been  persuaded  that  the 
apostolic  office  was  to  be  limited  to  those  originally  appointed,  and 
were  not  to  have  successors?"  From  this  he  infers  that  there 
must  at  that  time  have  been  ^Hrue  apostles,  who  had  succeeded  to 
the  office  originally  given  by  the  Savior  to  the  eleven,"  etc.  "  K 
not,"  he  adds,  "  why  try  any  one  who  pretended  that  he  had  re- 
ceived such  an  office  ?"* 

Now,  to  all  this  we  remark,  first,  that  on  the  prelatical  hypothesis 
of  consecration  exclusively  by  bishojjs,  such  a  trial  of  apostolical 
impostors  were  superfluous.  Otherwise  it  overthrows  that  infalli- 
bility which  the  Bishop  assures  us  was  to  be  imparted  to  them  by 
"the  Spirit  of  Christ;"  for  says  he,  that  Spirit  was  "promised  to 
guide  them  unto  all  truth,  and  to  keep  them  from  every  error,  in 
discharging  their  official  duties."f  At  least  all  that  was  essentially 
requisite  was,  to  know  whether  any,  calling  themselves  apostles, 
had  been  regularly  hooked  in  the  apostolico-genealogical  register,  a 
matter,  certainly,  at  "  the  beginning"  of  the  chain,  easily  ascer- 
tainable. 

But  no,  "  The  truth  is,"  as  Dr.  Duffield  aptly  remarks,  "  that 
the  very  fact  of  the  apostles  being  called  and  commissioned  by 
Jesus  Christ,  directly  offered  the  temptation  to  ambitious  and  as- 
piring men,  to  pretend  to  their  lofty  powers  and  office."  Hence 
the  trial  of  those  who  said  they  were  apostles.  And  the  vigilance 
of  the  New  Testament  Church  in  guarding  against  impostors,  is 
seen  as  well  among  the  Corinthians,  who  refused  to  recognize  the 
high  claims  even  of  the  great  Gentile  apostle  himself,  till  he  had 
proved  them  by  an  exhibit  of  "  the  signs  of  an  apostle,"  as  of  the 
Asiatic  Church  of  Ephesus.  And  the  whole  j^rocess  in  both  cases 
was  conducted  on  the  ground  of  the  suspicions  regarding  such, 
awakened  by  the  fact  tlcat  itforined  no  part  of  the  design  of  the  great 
Head  of  the  Churchy  that  the  twelve  apostles  should  have  successors. 
Nor  was  the  trial,  as  is  alleged,  "a  judicial  one."  With  the  min- 
isterial qualifications  as  laid  down  by  Paul  to  Timothy  and  Titus, 
every  member  of  the  Ephesian  Church  must  have  been  fimiliar. 
And  as  those  qualifications,  as  we  have  shown,  all  fell  below  the 
original  functions  apostolic,  they  could  readily  detect  the  impos- 
ture of  any  "  pretenders"  to  the  apostolic  office,  of  whom,  as  well 
at  that  time  as  in  Paul's  day,  there  were  doubtless  many. 

(1)  lTim.6  :  17. 
♦  Sermon  :  Episcopal  Bishops,  the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  pp.  2G,  27. 
tib. 


283 

Thus  have  we  examined,  at  a  length,  and  we  trust,  with  the 
care,  somewhat  proportionate  to  the  importance  of  the  subject,  the 
first  links  in  the  line  of  that  alleged  unbroken  succession  through 
which  prelatists  claim  a  "  spiritual  descent  from  the  apostles,"  and 
by  which  they  affirm  that  they,  as  those  in  whom  consists  the 
Esse^  the  very  Being  of  the  Church,  are  "  fastened  to  the  throne 
of  God."  We  now  submit  whether,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  New 
Testament  age  of  the  Church,  that  claim  has  been  shown  to  be 
utterly  without  foundation,  so  far  as  urged  in  behalf  of  Matthias, 
Barnabas,  Timothy,  Titus,  and  the  seven  apocalyptic  angels. 
There  is  yet  remaining  on  our  hands  an  examination  of  the 
validity  of  the  same  dogma  in  reference  to 

The  Romish  line  of  succession. 

The  Anglican  line  of  succession. 

The  American  line  of  succession. 


284 


CHAPTER  V. 

OF  THE   KOMISH   LDTE   OF  THE   ALLEGED   UNBROKEN   SUCCESSION. 
SECTION    I. 

This  theory  involves  the  establishment,  by  Christ,  of  a  chair  of  primacy  and  supre- 
macy in  the  Christian  Church. — Romanists  affirm,  Protestants  deny. — The  jMints 
involved  stated. — Bellarmine  and  Boniface  VIII.  quoted. — Fallacy  of  their  assump- 
tions proved,  first  from  Scripture. — First,  no  evidence  that  Christ  founded  any 
such  primacy,  etc. — Remarks  on  the  name  Pope. — Second,  dilemma  of  the 
Romish  hypothesis  as  shown  from  three  rivals  to  Peter  as  the  first  alleged  primate, 
namely,  James,  Paul  and  John. 

The  subject  of  tlie  Romish  line  of  the  succession  as  it  relates  to 
an  alleged /ac^,  at  this  point  assumes  a  somev/hat  new  aspect.  The 
question  of  an  unbroken  apostolical  succession  here  resolves  itself 
into  a  single  point,  viz. : 

Did  Jesus  Christ  establish  a  chair  of  prhnacy  in  the  Christian 
Church  f 

On  this  point  Romanists  affirm^  Protestants  deny.  And  both 
claim  for  their  support  the  authority  of  Scripture  and  of  Tradition, 

The  affirmative  of  the  above  proposition  very  obviously  sug- 
gests the  following  inquiries:  Who  first  occupied  that  chair? 
Did  Christ  ordain  a  succession?  Has  that  succession  been  per- 
petuated down  to  this  day  ? 

As  to  the  first  of  the  above  inquiries,  Romanists,  assuming  that 
Christ  Aas  established  a  chair  of  primacy  in.  the  Church,  allege 
that  that  primacy  was  founded  in  the  vicarial  headship:)  of  PETER, 
as  the  first  bishop^  supreme  and  infallible,  of  the  See  of  Rome,  and 
a  belief  of  which  they  make  essential  to  salvation.  Hence,  Bel- 
larmine:— 

"  The  right  of  succession  in  the  Popes  of  Rome  is  founded  in 
this,  that  Peter,  by  Christ's  appointment,  placed  his  seat  at  Rome, 
and  there  remained  till  his  death."* 

Boniface  VIII,  decreed  in  his  canon  the  following  : — 

"  Moreover,  we  declare,  and  say,  and  define,  and  pronounce,  to 
every  human  creature,  that  it  is  altogether  necessary  to  salvation 
to  be  subject  to  the  Roman  Pontiff." 

We  have  a  right  to  demand  that  such  assumptions  in  behalf  of 

*  Bellarmine,  Lib.  II.,  c.  L 


285 

the  supremacy,  etc.,  of  Peter,  be  as  clearly  maintained  as  that  of 
the  Aaronic  priesthood,  or  as  the  appointment  of  "the  twelve"  by 
Christ.  Their  fallacy  we  shall  demonstrate  by  the  arguments 
following,  commencing  with  Scripture,  namely, 

First  : 

There  is  no  evidence  in  "  Holy  Scripture'^  of  the  founding,  hy 
Christ,  of  such  a  supremacy,  etc.,  in  the  Church. 

To  avoid  repetition,  we  must  refer  the  reader  to  what  we  have 
already  offered*  in  answer  to  the  question  :  Had  any  one  of  "  the 
twelve"  a  precedence  in  rank  or  authority  either  over  the  others,  or 
of  primacy  or  supremacy  in  the  Church  of  Christ  ?  The  facts 
there  set  forth,  we  submit,  are  decisive  against  the  establishment 
by  Christ  of  such  a  "  primacy"  as  Romanists  allege. 

But,  admitting  the  institution  of  such  a  "  primacy,"  in  addition 
to  the  difficulties  suggested  by  the  arguments  alluded  to  regarding 
Peter  as  the  first  primate,  there  are,  we  observe,  three  others  of  the 
apostolic  college,  who  might  urge  sujperior  claims  to  that  honor — 
St.  James,  St.  Paul,  and  St.  John. 

Before  bringing  forward  these  claims,  however,  the  Piomish  de- 
signation of  this  primate  deserves  a  passing  remark.  He  is  known 
under  the  title  of  Pope.  (Greek,  na-mTag,  '■^poppas;"  Latin, 
''papa,''  "  father.") 

Now,  respecting  this  title,  we  remark  that,  in  holy  Scripture, 
"  there  is  one,  whose  double  relation  to  Jew  and  Gentile  was  ])Te- 
eminently  paternal.  Was  it  Aaron  the  high  priest?  So  it  should 
be,  on  the  ground  of  the  alleged  analogy  between  that  functionary 
and  the  Romish  priesthood.  So  far  from  it,  however,  that  relation 
was  sustained  by  Abraham,  first,  to  the  Jew,  as  lineally  descended 
from  him,  and  who  could  hence  say,  "We  have  Abraham  to  our 
father ;"  and  second,  to  the  converted  Gentile,  between  whom  and 
Abraham  exists  the  relationship  of  spiritual  children  to  a  believing 
father.  "Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for 
righteousness.  Know  ye,  therefore,  that  they  which  he  of  faith., 
the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham."'  As  such,  Abraham,  as  a 
"  father,"  could  look  upon  them  as  the  children  of  promise."' 

Not  so  however,  the  apostles.  So  far  from  it,  the  uniform  Ian 
guage  of  Christ  to  them  was,  "-Be  not  ye  called  Rabbi,  for  one  is 
your  master,  even  Christ,  and  all  ye  are  brethren.  And  call  no 
man  your  father,f  upon  the  earth  ;  for  one  is  your  father,  which  is 
in  heaven."'  We  ask  here,  could  language  frame  a  more  positive 
injunction,  "  Call  no  mam,  father  .^" 

(1)  Gal.  3  :  5,  6.     (2)  lb.,  v.  19.    (3)  Matt.  23  :  8,  9. 
«  See  Part  II.,  pp.  115-123. 

t  The  prohibition,  therefore,  "  call  no  man  Pope,"  comes  fully  within  the  command. 
Tlor^p,  father,  vel  va-mrai,  pappa. 


*> 


286 

Romanists,  however,  not  only  usurp  the  title  in  its  earthly 
sense,  but  in  the  sense  also  in  which  it  is  applied  to  the  eternal 
God.  The  vicar  of  Christ  in  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  is  sometimes 
styled  "  Lord  God  the  Pope,"* 

We  add,  in  conclusion  on  this  subject,  tliat  it  should  be  distinctly 
observed,  there  is  as  much  sophistry  in  the  use  of  the  word  Pope, 
as  was  ever  played  off  on  earth.  This  word,  in  the  East,  was  first 
applied  to  all  bishops,  and  is  now  so  applied  in  Russia.  It  was  in 
the  fifth  century  applied  to  the  senior  bishops  and  metropolitans 
of  the  West ;  but  it  was  not  until  the  time  of  Gregory  VII.,  a.d. 
1073,  that  it  was  exclusively  appropriated,  by  his  own  innovation, 
to  the  bishops  of  Rome. 

Is  it  not  more  than  significant,  that  the  American  Protestant 
bishops  should  have  assumed  the  title,  for  example,  "The  Right 
Reverend  leather  in  God,  John  Henry  Hobart,  Bishop  of  the  Dio- 
cese of  New  York"  ? 

This  premised,  respecting  the  matter  of  right  to  the  pontifical 
chaii',  we  affirm, 

Second  : 

That  there  are  other  apostles,  who  might  ha/ce  urged  superior 
claims  to  a  primacy  in  the  Church,  to  those  of  Peter. 

This  is  true, 

1.  Of  the  apostle  James.  In  evidence,  take  a  glance  at 
the  convocation  in  Jerusalem,  as  recorded  Acts  15.  By  whom 
was  it  convoked  ?  Answer  :  By  some  two  or  three  of  the 
churches  of  Antioch.  Of  whom  composed  ?  Answer :  Of 
*'  the  apostles  and  elders,"  and  of  "  the  Church"  in  Jerusalem. 
Who  occupied  the  pontifical  chair  ?  Certainly  not  Peter,  but 
James,  who  commanded  their  special  audience,  and  who,  having 
drafted  the  decree  commencing  with,  "  My  sentence  is,"  etc.,  was 
honored  with  the  acquiescence  therein  of  "  the  apostles  and 
elders,  with  the  whole  Church  !"  Finally,  duplicates  of  this  de- 
cree, in  the  form  of  "letters,"  were  sent  to  the  diftereut  churches 
by  a  delegation  appointed — mark,  neither  by  James  nor  by  Peter, 
but  by  the  convocation  composed  of  "  the  apostles  and  elders, 
and  brethren."  "It  seemed  good  unto  us,  being  assembled  with 
one  accord,"  etc.  While,  therefore,  the  inspired  narrative  exhibits 
a  total  absence  of  all  apostolical  primacy  or  supremacy  in  the 
Church,  James  evidently  filled  the  most  conspicuous  post  in  the 
above  transaction.     The  same,  we  affirm,  is  true, 

2.  Of  Paid.  We  here  premise,  respecting  Peter,  what  cannot 
be  deemed  other  than  singular,  that  in  no  instance  does  that  apos- 
tle appropriate  to  himself  the  title  of  paternity,  in  his  relation  to 
the  Church.     So  far  from  it,  as  though  he  had  possessed  some  pro- 

*  See  pp.  221,  222. 


287 

phetic  foresiglit  of  tlie  use  which  would  afterwards  be  made  of  his 
name,  and  some  settled  caution  to  abstain  from  every  syllable 
which  might  be  employed  in  imputing  an  ofQcial  paternity  to  him, 
his  words  arc  studiously  fraternal :  "To  the  elders  which  are 
among  you,  I  exhort,  who  also  am  an  elder .""^ 

Paul,  however,  unlike  Peter  in  this  respect,  does  employ  paren- 
tal phraseology.  He  calls  Timothy  his  own  son  in  the  foith,"  and 
his  '■'■dearly  beloved  son  ;"  and  Titus,  his  "  oum  son  after  the  com- 
mon faith.'"  So  far,  therefore,  as  this  appellation  is  concerned, 
Paul,  and  7iot  Peter,  was  the  first  Pope !  Still,  we  deny  that  Paul 
used  this  appellation  in  an  official  sense,  but  simply  as  expressive 
of  that  paternity  which  grew  out  of  the  spiritual  relation,  to  him, 
of  those  who,  "in  Christ  Jesus,  he  had  begotten  through  the  Gos- 
pel."^ When  he  has  occasion  to  speak  of  office — as  in  his  address 
to  Timothy,  he  employs  a  term  expressive,  not  of  the  paternal,  but 
of  the  fraternal  bond :  "  Paul,  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
Timothy  our  brotJierP* 

Again.  On  the  Eomish  hypothesis  of  the  celibacy  of  the  cler- 
gy, Paul,  who  was  a  bachelor^"  might  justly  claim  a  precedence 
over  Peter,  who  had  a  wife.^ 

One  other  consideration  may  yet  be  added.  "We  refer  to  the 
fact,  that  the  Galatians  looked  upon  James,  Cephas,  and  John  as 
"  pillars,"  equally  sustaining  the  weight  of  the  affairs  of  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem  not  only,  but,  having  cast  a  suspicious  eye 
toward  the  claims  set  up  by  Paul  as  one  of  the  number,  he  pro- 
ceeds, not  to  detract  from  their  honors,  but  to  vindicate  his  own. 
And  in  what  way  ?  Why,  yielding  the  point  that  the  others  were 
"pillars,"  he  places  himself  beside  them,  on  the  ground  of  perfect 
equality.  Peter  (Cephas)  is  one  of  the  number.  And,  calling  to 
mind  the  origin  or  source  and  functions  of  his  office,  though  "  one 
born  out  of  due  time,"  yet  he  says,  "  in  nothing  am  I  behind  the 
very  cliiffest  apostles."'  And  in  addition  to  this,  it  is  positively 
declared,  that,  "upon him  (Paul)  was  the  care  oi all  the  churches.^'^ 
And,  that  he  "  labored  more  abundantly  than  they  all,"*     Finally, 

3.  In  behalf  of  the  apostle  John,  we  have  somewhat  to  offer. 
Let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  that  remarkable  reply  of  Christ  to 
Peter  respecting  him,—"  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come  ;"'"  and 
which  was  construed  to  mean  (though  erroneously*)  that  "he 
should  not  die,"  was  still  abroad  among  the  brethren.  And,  as 
aU  the  apostles,  save  he,  had  "  fallen  asleep  in  Christ"  at  the  close 
of  the  first  century,  he  being  still  present  with  the  Church  to  dis- 
pense to  her  in  all  its  plenitude,  the  benefits  of  his  apostolic  office, 
that  circumstance  seemed  to  countenance  the  above  conjecture  re- 
specting him.  At  this  epoch,  he  stands  before  us  as  the  venerable 
patriarch  of  the  Christian  Church.     His  personal  history  is  identi- 

(1)  1  Pet.  5  : 1.  (9)  1  Tim.  1  :'l  ;  2  Tim.  2:1;  Tit.  1  :  4.  (3)  1  Cor.  4  :  15.  (4)  Ph'lem.  1. 
(5)  1  Cor.  7:1,7.  (6)  Matt.  8  :  14.  (7)  2  Cor.  11  :  5.  (8)  2  Cor.  11  :  28.  (0)  1  Cor.  15  :  10.  (10)  John 
31  :  2-2. 

*  See  Part  I.,  Preliminary  Essay,  etc.,  pp.  "73, 76. 


288 

fled  witli  its  most  sacred  events  and  memorials.  He  had  been  with 
his  Lord  in  the  splendor  of  the  Mount  of  transfiguration,  and  in 
the  gloom  of  the  agony  of  Gethsemane.  He  had  leaned  upon  his 
bosom  at  the  pascal  supper,  and  had  received  from  his  tremulous 
lips  when  hanging  on  the  cross,  the  tender  charge  to  be  a  son  to 
Mary  his  weeping  mother.  Her  history,  from  that  time,  had  been 
intertwined  with  his  own  ;  for,  from'  that  day,  he  had  taken  her  to 
his  own  home.  lie  had  taken  his  full  share  in  the  journeys  and 
sufferings  of  the  apostles  ;  and,  if  he  had  not  labored  more  abund- 
antly than  they  all,  yet  he  had  labored  during  a  longer  pei'iod  ih&n 
they  all.  And  now,  wrapt  in  the  visions  of  the  future,  he  becomes 
the  amanuensis  of  the  Spirit,  in  recording  the  prophetic  fortunes  of 
the  Church,  to  the  close  of  time. 

How  is  it,  then,  we  ask,  since  he  became  in  age  the  acknowl- 
edged patriarch  of  Christianity,  that  the  supremacy  was  never 
claimed  for  him?  The  subject  of  the  next  section  will  furnish  a 
reply. 


SECTION    n. 

Fallacy  of  the  Romish  theory  of  the  Succession,  as  derived  from  the  nature  of  traditional 
evidence. — Proof,  that  Peter  never  visited  Rome. — Acts  15  quoted. — Examination 
of  traditionary  fragments. — Eusebius,  Papias,  Dionysiasof  Corinth,  Caius,  Irenaeus. 
— His  statements  regarding  Polycarp  invalidated. — The  Latin  translation  of  his  works 
not  reliable. — He  does  not  affirm  that  Peter  was  Bishop  of  Rome. — Further  proof 
from  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Ronjans. — Romanists  not  agreed  as  to  Peter's  primacy  at 
Rome. — Direct  proof  from  Scripture. 

Was  Peter  ever  at  Rome  ? 

As  it  respects  the  apostle  John,  there  was  no  tradition  which 
could  connect  his  latter  days  with  Rome.  Such  a  tradition,  how- 
ever, is  alleged  in  behalf  of  Peter.  The  authorities,  therefore, 
shall  be  forthcoming.     Pass  we  now, 

Third: 

To  another  argument,  in  proof  of  the  fallacy  of  the  primacy  of 
Peter.     It  is  drawn  from  the  nature  of  traditional  evid  •nee. 

We  remark  then,  that,  from  the  magnitude  and  ulterior  bearings 
of  the  above  alleged  fact  on  its  traditional  authority,  reason  justi- 
fies the  demand,  that  the  evidence  rest,  not  on  mere  hearsay,  not 
on  probability  or  conjecture,  but  on  the  testimony  of  an  eye 
and  ear  witness  of  the  fact  alleged ;  such,  for  example,  as  that 


289 

given  by  Jolin  of  the  life,  actions,  death,  and  resurrection  of  the 
Lord  Jesus — "That  which  we  have  seen  and  heard,  declare  we 
unto  you.'"  On  such  testimony,  proof  being  available  of  its  un- 
corrupt  transmission  down  to  this  day,  the  mind  can  rest  with  un- 
doubting  confidence. 

But  is  this,  we  ask,  the  character  of  the  tradition  regarding 
Peter,  to  which  Romanists  demand  our  unqualified  assent  ?  So 
far  from  it,  on  this  the  vital  point  of  the  entire  fabric  of  the 
Papacy,  we  are  thrown  upon  the  legendary  testimony  of  an  un- 
written tradition,  stretching,  not  through  five,  or  fifty,  but  through 
a  period  of  about  two  hundred  years. 

The  contrast  between  a  doubtful  and  an  authentic  tradition,  (and 
which  is  fundamental  to  an  understanding  of  the  merits  of  the 
question  before  us,)  may  be  thus  stated.  "  Suppose  that,  in  the 
year  one  thousand,  a  tradition  had  been  current  that  a  certain 
bridge  over  the  river  Tiber  had  been  built  in  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  that  Peter  laid  the  corner-stone  of  the  Roman  abutment. 
Some  incredulous  persons  began  then  to  doubt  of  the  matter,  and 
called  upon  those  who  afiirmed  that  Peter  laid  that  stonfe  to  prove 
it.  They  go  to  work.  They  found  very  man}^  to  believe  it  in  the 
tenth  century :  fewer  in  the  ninth,  fewer  in  the  eighth,  fewer  in  the 
seventh,  till,  within  two  hundred  years  of  the  time,  they  find  only 
one  person  that  affirms  faith  in  it,  and  with  him  it  is  an  unwritten 
tradition.  All  record  ceases.  There  is  a  perfect  chasm  of  two 
hundred  years  without  a  single  witness." 

This,  then,  we  afiirm,  is  true  of  the  Romish  tradition  regarding 
Peter's  residence  at  Rome,  as  its  first  bishop.  Still,  Romanists  at- 
tempt to  bridge  this  chasm,  not  only,  but  the  advocates  of  Prelacy 
of  all  grades,  insisting  with  them  that  tradition  is  decisive  on  this 
point,  are  equally  interested  in  the  consequences  involved  in  it, 
But,* 

Fourth  : 

We,  however,  deny  that  Peter  was  ever  at  Rome.  The  New  Tes- 
tament Scriptures,  of  course,  are  entirely  silent  on  the  subject. 
Let  us  then  examine  the  Traditional  evidence  of  the  fact,  as  alleged 
by  Romanists,  etc. 

The  facts  of  the  case,  in  regard  to  Peter,  are  simply  as  follows : 
His  life,  so  far  as  furnished  in  the  inspired  records,  is  brought 
down  to  a.  d.  49  or  50,  and  leaves  him  at  Jerusalem  (Acts  15). 
From  this  point,  for  all  further  information  respecting  him,  we  are 
wholly  dependent  on  the  bewildering  uncertainty  of  early  tradi- 
tion. "  We  will  now  proceed  to  present  its  scanty  fragments  before 
the  reader,  with  such  expository  remarks  appended  as  the  case 
may  require. 

(1)  John  1  :  3. 
*  See  also  on  this  subject  Section  V.  (1)  Peter ^  of  this  chapter. 
19 


290 

According  to  Eusebius,^  Peter's  first  visit  to  Eorae  is  placed  in 
the  second  year  of  Claudius,  A.  d.  44,  and  his  martyrdom  in  the 
fourteenth  of  Nero,  a.  d.  69.  This,  however,  evidently  clashes  with 
the  chronology  of  the  New  Testament  as  above,  not  only,  but  with 
the  fact,  that  he  had  not  visited  Kome  at  the  time  of  Paul's  writ- 
ing to  the  Corinthians  from  that  city,  A.  D.  57  or  58,  or  up  to  the 
date  at  which  the  history  of  the  Acts  closes,  about  a.  d,  63.  And, 
to  say  nothing  of  Epiphanius,  who  places  his  martyrdom  in  the 
twelfth  year  of  Nero,  and  Cave  in  the  tenth ;  the  early  and  pre- 
vailing tradition  of  his  martyrdom  at  Rome  with  Paul,  is  made  to 
rest,  first,  upon  a  forced  interpretation  of  a  passage  in  the  epistle 
of  Clement  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians,  in  which  he  alleges  the 
fact  in  plain  terms,  but  without  indicating  anything  as  to  time  or 
place.  Second,  upon  Papias,f  who  affirms  that  Peter  was  at' Rome, 
but  who  evidentl}'  invalidates  his  own  testimony,  by  confounding 
Rome  with  Babylon. :j;  Third,  upon  the  statement  of  Dionysias 
of  Corinth,  who,  as  cited  by  Eusebius,  speaks  of  the  same  apostles 
as  "going  together  into  Italy,"  and  that  they  taught  there,  and 
suffered  martyrdom  about  the  same  time.  Fourth,  of  the  state- 
ment of  Caius  the  presbyter,  that  the  trophies  or  tombs  of  Peter 
and  Paul  were  still  to  be  seen  in  the  cemeteries  of  Rome,  with 
their  names  inscribed  upon  them.  But  chiefly,  fifth,  upon  that  of 
Irenaius,  the  scholar  of  Papias,  and  the  disciple  of  Polycarp,  who 
was  the  disciple  of  the  Apostle  John.  He  flourished  in  the  second 
century,  and  was  by  birth  a  Greek.  Polycarp's  conversion  is  set 
down  at  the  year  80,  and  John  lived  to  the  close  of  the  first  cen- 
tury. So  that  John  taught  Polycarp,  and  Polycarp  Irenseus. 
And  hence  the  proximity  of  Ireua3us  to  the  apostles  is  urged  in 
proof  of  the  clearness  of  the  testimony  in  his  day.  Somewhat 
plausible  this,  truly.  But,  in  addition  to  the  consideration,  that 
the  nearer  we  approach  any  true  event,  the  more  numerous  should 
be  the  vouchers  of  its  reality  and  authenticity  ;  and  that,  if  de- 
pendent on  tradition,  that  that  tradition  should  be  proved  ;  of  this 
testimony  of  Irena^us,  we  remark. 

First,  that,  whatever  it  be,  it  is  seriously  invalidated  by  his 
statement   regarding   Polycarp,  who,  he   affirms,   was   appointed 

♦  The  earliest  ecclesiastical  historian  extant.  He  was  Bishop  of  Caesarea,  and  wrote 
his  history  in  the  early  part  of  the  fourth  century 

t  Bishop  of  Hierapolis  in  Phrygia,  was  supposed  by  Ireneeus  to  have  been  instructed 
by  the  Apostle  John.  {Spanheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  194  )  See  also  Literal 
History  of  the  New  Testament,  pp.  177,  10.'')-197.     London,  lS4r). 

X  Peter's  first  epistle  is  dated  from  Babylon,  and  hence  the  ancient  supposition  that, 
under  this  name,  Rome  was  intended  ;  but  it  is  one  of  the  most  unfounded  conjectures 
that  ever  obtained  the  stamp  of  tradition.  Yet,  it  is  mentioned  by  Eusebius  as  a  pre- 
vailing opinion,  and  has  been  eagerly  adopted  by  the  writers  of  the  Roman  communion, 
in  order  to  prove  the  contested  point  of  Peter's  residence  in  the  imperial  metropolis. 
But  Milman  (History  of  Christianity,  B.  I.,  c.  2;  B.  H.,  c.  3) ,  following  Lightfoot, 
says,  "  that  Babylon  was  the  scene  of  Peter'.'  labors,  and  remarks  that  both  Josephus 
and  Philo,  in  two  places,  name  Babylon  as  the  habitation  of  the  great  eastern  settle- 
ment. The  notion,  espou.sed  by  Greswell  ^following  Le  Clerc  and  Pearson),  that 
Babylon  in  Egypt  is  intended,  is  without  any  support  from  evidence. 


291 

bishop  of  Smyrna  hy  the  apostles.  The  facts  in  the  case  are  these  • 
Poly  carp  died,  A.  D.  167.  He  was  fifty  years  bishop  of  Smyrna. 
His  ordination,  therefore,  must  have  taken  place  A.  d.  117,  before 
which  time  all  the  apostles  had  been  removed  by  death !  How 
then,  we  ask,  could  he  have  been  ordained  "by  the  apostles"? 
But, 

Second.  We  have  said  that  Irenteus  was  by  birth  a  Greek. 
Now,  the  only  fragment  of  antiquity  relating  to  the  subject  in 
question — a  fragment  which  was  extant  in  the  time  of  Constantine, 
and  on  which  Eusebius  himself  relies — is  not  a  Greek  original, 
but  a  Latin  ti-anslation  of  that  father's  works.  It  is  also  to  be  par- 
ticularly borne  in  mind,  that  the  Greek  version  of  Irenseus  being 
lost,  the  Latin  translation  was  not  found  for  some  hundreds  of 
years  afterwards.  What,  then,  is  his  statement  on  this  subject  ? 
Simpl}^  this  :  that  "  these  blessed  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul  (mark, 
not  Peter  alone),  founding  and  instituting  the  Church" — that  is, 
at  Rome — "  delivered  the  care  of  it  to  Linus,"  etc.*  In  view  of 
these  facts,  however,  that  this  statement  comes  down  to  us  second- 
hand, not  only,  but  in  a  translated  form ^  and  at  a  remote  period  from 
the  time  of  the  original,  our  suspicion  of  its  authenticity  cannot 
fail  to  be  awakened,  and  especially  so  when  we  take  into  the  account 
the  declaration  of  the  learned  Du  Pin,  already  quoted, f  regarding 
the  inventions  of  false  histories,  and  the  mutilations  and  corrup- 
tions of  the  writings  of  that  age,  by  the  Catholics  themselves. 

Then,  as  it  respects  the  statement  itself,  we  remark  in  the  first 
place  that,  though  it  implies  that  both  Peter  and  Paul  were  at 
Home,  yet  Irengeus  does  not  say  that  either  of  them  was  bishop 
of  Rome,  but  simply,  that  they  ^''founded  and  instituted''''  the 
Church  there.  We  proceed,  however,  to  demonstrate  in  the  next 
place,  that  the  above  statement  involves  one  of  two  dilemmas : 
either  that  Irena?us  states  what  is  not  true ;  or,  that  the  above 
translation  of  his  works  is  a  forgery. 

Our  argument  is  this  :  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  was  writ- 
ten and  sent  to  them,  hefore  he  ever  saw  that  city ;  it  was,  con- 
eequently,  sent  to  a  Christian  Church  already  "  founded  and  insti- 
tuted" there.  It  follows,  that  Paul  could  have  had  no  agency  in 
that  matter ;  and  also,  that  Peter's  having  done  so,  rests  upon 
mere  inference,  based  on  no  one  knows  how  many  editions  of  a 
second-hand  statement  from  Irenasus. 

Nor,  further,  does  it  diminish  our  want  of  confidence  in  this 
alleged  statement  of  Irenasus,  to  find  such  Romish  writers  as  Bel- 
larmine  and  Barronius  expressing  themselves  with  different  de- 
grees of  assurance  on  this  subject.  Bellarmine  positively  affirms, 
that  "  the  right  of  succession  in  the  Popes  of  Rome  is  founded  in 
this,  that  Peter  by  Christ's  appointment  placed  his  seat  at  Rome:":f 

*  Irenaeus,  Book  III.,  c.  3. 

t  See  Part  I.,  Preliminary  Essay  on  Scripture  and  Tradition,  pp.  60,  61. 

t  BeUarmine,  Lib.  II.,  Chap.  1. 


292 

whereas  Barronius  only  ventures  to  say,  that  it  is  not  improbable 
that  our  Lord  gave  an  express  command  that  Peter  should  so  fix 
his  Sec  at  Rome,  that  the  Bishop  of  Kome  should  absolutely  suc- 
ceed him." 

To  conclude  our  remarks  on  this  mooted  point,  exchanging  the 
dubiousness  of  traditional  for  the  certainty  of  scriptural  teaching, 
we  learn,  in  regard  to  Paul,  that,  though  he  was  at  Rome,  yet 
that  it  was  in  the  capacity,  not  of  the  "  founder"  of  that  Church — 
not  as  its  pontiff,  but  "  as  the  jprisoner  of  the  Lord^''  watering, 
indeed,  by  his  teaching,  his  counsel,  and  his  example,  as  he  had 
previously  done  by  his  Epistle,  that  Church  which  had  been 
planted  by  other  hands,  and  these  hands,  not  those  of  St.  Peter ; 
for,  as  we  have  said  in  another  place,  while  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures  are  entirely  silent  on  the  subject  of  his  ever  having 
been  at  Rome,  "  we  read  of  his  being  at  Jerusalem^  at  Samaria^ 
at  Lydda^  at  Joppa^  at  Cesarea^  and  at  Antioch  /  and,  from  one 
of  his  Epistles,  we  conclude  that  he  also  traveled  through  Pon- 
tus,  Galatia,  Gappadocia^  Asia  and  Bithynia;  a  circumstance,  we 
must  insist,  totally  irreconcilable  with  the  above  omission  to  re- 
cord the  fact — a  fact  on  which  was  suspended  such  stupenduous 
results  to  the  Church  and  the  world — had  he  ever  been  there. 

"With  the  preceding  facts  and  arguments  as  drawn  from  Scrip- 
ture and  tradition,  demonstrative  of  the  fallacy  of  the  prelatical 
pretense  that  Peter  was  the  first  bishop  of  Rome,  before  us,  we 
think  we  are  safe  in  adopting  the  conclusion,  that  our  blessed  Lord 
dAd  not  establish  a  chair  of  primacy  and  supremacy  in  that  See. 


SECTION  in. 

The  Romish  dogma  of  an  untroken  succession  subjected  to  the  test  of  "  ancient  authors  " 
or  TuADiTioN.T-Preliminary. — It  is  a  question  of  genealogy. —  One  absent  link 
breaks  the  chain. — The  pretense,  a  grand  and  stupendous  deception. — Arguments 
continued,  demonstrative  of  its  fallacy.— Fifth.  The  Romish  argument  for,  as 
based  on  the  alleged  preservation  of  the  Scriptures  by  that  Church. — Sixth.  Rom- 
ish schisms. — Seventh.  Absence  of  uniformity  in  the  pontifical  elections. 

Still,  the  Church  of  Rome  alleges,  that  Christ  ordained  a  suc- 
cession for  the  pe/petuity  of  that  primacy,  of  Avhich  Peter  was  the 
fountain  or  source.  The  existence  of  the  alleged  chair,  and  its 
occupant,  however,  having  been  proven  as  repugnant  to  reason  as 
it  is  opposed  bv  Scripture  and  by  fact,  the  fallacy  of  such  an  or- 
dained succession  becomes  at  once  apparent.  The  way  is  therefore 
open  for  our  transit  to  the  last  sequence  in  the  above  proposition, 
namely,  the  dogma  of  an  alleged  unhroken  succession.  This  dog- 
ma, it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  we  are  now  to  consider  as  a  tra- 
ditional FACT ;  and  mark,  it  is  a  question  oi  genealogy ;  it  affirms 


293 

a  continuous  line  of  descent  from  Peter  of  Rome,  down  to  the 
reigning  Pope,  Pius  IX.,  "  preserved  as  inviolate  as  the  line  of  the 
descent  of  Adam,  or  of  the  succession  of  seedtime  and  harvest,  of 
day  and  night,  of  summer  and  winter." — (Bishop  McIlvaine.) 
Accordingl}',  if  one  link  be  wanting, 

'•Ten  or  ten  thousandth,  breaks  the  chain  aUke.'' — Pope. 

The  "register,"  therefore,  must  be  clear  and  perfect;  and  so^ 
worthy  the  sacred  purpose  of  an  exhibit  of  a  "  consecrated  host" 
of  popes,  prelates,  presbyters  and  deacons,  bound,  by  links  indis- 
soluble, in  one  grand  golden  chain,  reaching  upward,  and  "  fast- 
ened to  the  throne  of  God." — (Bishop  McIlvaine.) 

But  all  of  which,  WE  hold  to  be,  a  grand  and  stupendous  decep- 
tion— an  ample  net  for  catching  men,  a  delusion  and  bondage 
made  for  the  world,  as  the  Gospel  was  a  redemption  made  for  the 
world ;  the  deepest  device  and  mightiest  achievement  of  Satan ; 
the  which,  if  we  prove  it  not,  or  if  any  pope,  bishop,  priest  or 
deacon  will  condescend  to  convict  us  either  of  unfairness  in  our 
quotations,  sophistry  in  our  reasoning,  or  error  in  our  deductions, 
we  herebv  pledge  ourself,  from  that  moment,  to  forfeit  forever  all 
right  and  title  to  "  benefit  of  clergy,"  "  book,"  and  "  bell." 

Having  then,  as  we  think,  shown  the  fallacy  of  the  Eomish  pre- 
tense of  the  establishment  in  the  Christian  Church  of  a  chair  of 
primacy  and  supremacy,  by  arguments  drawn,  firsts  from  the  ab- 
sence of  any  evidence  therefor  in  holy  Scripture;  second^  from  the 
superior  claims  of  other  apostles  to  the  primacy  over  those  alleged 
in  favor  of  Peter ;  thirds  from  the  nature  of  traditional  evidence 
in  the  premises  ;  and  fourth^  from  the  evidence  adduced  in  proof, 
that  Peter  never  was  at  Rome,  and  hence,  that,  as  a  consequence, 
our  blessed  Lord  could  not  have  ordained  such  a  succession  from 
Peter  as  prelatists  allege,  we  shall  continue  our  former  line  of  ar- 
gument, by  way  of  adding  to  them  those  which  demonstrate  the 
fallacy  of  the  dogma  of  an  unbroken  succession,  as  an  alleged  tra- 
ditional fact. 

Fifth  : 

Romanists  affirm  the  traditional  ^preservation  of  the  Scriptures  hy 
that  Churchy  in  support  of  their  dogma  of  an  unbroken  succession. 
Its  fallacy  has  been  fully  laid  open,  in  our  Preliminary  Essay  on 
Scripture  and  Tradition,  to  which  we  respectfully  refer  the  reader.* 
Another  argument  in  proof  of  its  fallacy  may  be  drawn, 

Sixth: 

From  the  nuinerous  scMsms  in  the  Church  of  Borne.  These, 
according  to  some  of  their  writers,  were  twenty -two  in  number. 

«  See  Essay,  Part  I.,  pp.  80-85. 


294 

Others  make  them  twenty-six.  Protestants  count  twenty-nine. 
Our  space,  however,  will  only  allow  a  few  examples  in  illustration. 
Take,  then,  first,  the  double  election,  as  Popes  of  Eome,  of  Nova- 
tus  aud  Cornelius,  a.d.  251,  the  latter  of  whom  was  at  length  put 
to  death.*  Second,  that  of  Liberius  and  Felix,  a.d.  367,  of  whom, 
if  Liberius  be  the  true  Pope,  then  the  Church  had  for  her  spiritual 
head,  an  Arian.f  Third,  that  of  Damasus  and  Ursicinus,  in  the  midst 
of  whose  conflicting  claims  for  the  popedom,  many  lives  were  sac- 
rificed. This  controversy,  however,  was  finally  settled  by  the 
banishment  of  the  latter,  a.d.  381,  by  the  Emperor  Gratian,  in 
whose  decision  as  an  earthly  ruler,  on  the  hypothesis  of  the 
Romish  succession,  now  rests  the  faith  and  salvation  of  the  Romish 
Church.:}:  Next  we  find,  fourth,  as  in  the  preceding  case,  Peter's 
chair  is  filled  by  the  Emperor  Honorius,  an  Arian,  who  rejected 
Eulalius  in  favor  of  Boniface  I.,  as  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  a.d.  419.§ 
Fifth.  Another  schism  occurred  in  the  double  election  of  Lauren- 
tius  and  Symmachus,  a.d.  498,  and  which  was  also  attended  with 
war  and  bloodshed. ||  So,  sixth,  the  simultaneous  election  of  Boni- 
face II.,  and  Dioscorus,  a.d.  529,  but  the  death  of  the  latter  soon 
after  ended  this  strife.^f  A  seventh  schism  grew  out  of  the  election, 
at  the  same  time,  of  Sylverius  by  the  people  of  Rome,  and  of  Vigil- 
ius  by  the  Emj)ress  Theodora.  Here  then  we  have  a  Pope  placed 
in  Peter's  chair  by  a  woman.  But  Vigilius,  though  he  procured 
the  banishment  of  his  rival,  who  died  in  exile  by  famine,  having 
killed  his  secretary  by  a  blow  with  his  fist,  and  whipped  his  sis- 
ter's son  to  death,  and  whom  the  Romans  ever  looked  upon  as  a 
usurper,  was  never  acknowledged  by  them  as  their  lawful  Pope.** 
Another :  Eighth.  After  the  death  of  Gregory  VII.,  a  schism 
ensued  between  Benedict  VIII.,  son  to  Gregory  the  Count  of  Fres- 
cati,  and  one  Gregory,  who  was  elected  by  the  Romans,  and  ejec- 
ted Benedict  VIII.  He,  however,  was  subsequently  restored  by 
Henry  King  of  Germany,  but  died  a.d.  1034.  Following  this, 
another  son  of  the  Count  Frescati,  who  assumed  the  title  of  John 
XVIII.,  was  simonically  elected  in  his  place.  Upon  his  death, 
a.d.  1033,  Albert,  the  brother  of  the  Count  Frescati,  placed  his 
son  Theophylact,  a  child  of  only  about  twelve  years  of  age,  in 
the  papal  chair,  who  took  the  name  of  Benedict  IX.  After  the 
lapse  of  ten  years,  however,  enraged  at  the  enormous  profligacy 
of  his  life,  he  was  ejected  in  favor  of  S^dvester  III.,  formerlj^  Bish- 
op of  Sabina.  But,  during  all  this  time,  Benedict  VIII.  was  still 
on  the  stage,  and,  returning  from  his  voluntary  exile,  he  expelled 
his  competitor,  and  re-assumed  the  papal  chair.  His  profligacy, 
however,  incapacitating  him  for  the  duties  of  his  office,  he  bartered 
the  popedom  to  Gratian  the  Archbishop  of  Rome,  who  -assumed 
the  name  of  Gregory  VI.  Here,  then,  we  have,  at  the  same  time, 
three  rivals  for  the  papal  chair — Sylvester  III.,  Benedict  VIII., 

*  Du  Pin,  Vol  I.,  p.  135.  t  Du  Pin,  Vol.  I.,  p.  190. 

t  lb.  pp.  226,  227.  §  lb.  p.  417.         |I  lb.  p.  527.       1  lb.  p.  542,      **  lb.  p.  552 


295 

and  Gregory  VI.  Henry,  however,  having  succeeded  his  father, 
Conrad,  a.d.  1039,  resolved  to  terminate  this  schism,  which  he  sup- 
posed he  had  effected,  by  causing  their  deposition  in  several 
synods  as  usurpers,  simonianists,  and  criminals,  and  by  placing 
Suidger,  Bishop  of  Hamburg,  in  their  stead,  under  the  title  of 
Clement  II.  Nine  short  months,  however,  ended  his  career,  a.d. 
1047,  when  Benedict  IX.,  the  son  of  the  Count  of  Frescati,  re- 
turning to  Eome,  remounted  the  papal  chair  in  opposition  to  Poppo, 
the  Bishop  of  Bresse,  who  had  been  sent  to  Rome  from  Germany 
by  the  Emperor,  bearing  the  consecrated  title  of  Damasus  11.*^ 
Ninth.  Other  schisms  and  interregnums  occurred  between  a.d. 
1261  and  1379. f  But  passing  these  as  of  lesser  importance,  we 
remark,  that  for  seventy  years,  there  was  a  vacancy  in  the  pontifi- 
cal chair  of  Rome.  The  Pope,  during  this  period,  was  a  resident, 
not  of  the  eternal  city,  but  of  Avignon  in  Paris.  Besides,  for 
almost  half  a  century,  there  was  a  double  succession  in  the  line  of 
Popes,  the  one  Italian,  the  other  French.  And  finally,  to  cap  the 
climax,  the  thirteenth  century  closes  with  the  conflicting  claims  to  the 
papal  See  of  another  tripod  of  formidable  rivals,  namely,  Benedict 
XIII.,  of  Spain  ;  Gregory  XII.,  of  France  ;  and  John  XXIIL,  of 
Italy.  And,  to  these,  the  Roman  Cardinals  add  Clement  VII.  To 
mend  the  matter,  the  Council  of  Pisa,  a.d.  1409,  deposed  both 
Gregory  and  Benedict,  and,  under  a  pretense  of  reforming  former 
abuses,  elected  Alexander  V.  This,  however,  only  increased  the 
schism.  Alexander  was  poisoned  by  his  rival,  John  XXIII.,  who 
endeavored  to  conciliate  the  University  of  Paris,  and  convened  a 
general  council  at  Rome,  hoping  thereby  to  establish  his  authority 
to  the  exclusion  of  his  rivals,  but  he  failed.  At  the  Council  of 
Constance,  a.d.  1414,  John  and  Benedict  were  deposed  ;  Gregory 
abdicated ;  and  a  new  Pope  was  elected  under  the  title  of  Martin  Y.j;. 
It  will  furnish  a  suitable  introduction  to  the  uses  to  which  these 
schisms  will  be  applied,  to  advert. 

Seventh : 

To  the  total  want  of  uniformity  in  the  method  of  condiLcting  iJie 
pontifical  elections. 

Irenteus,  it  is  affirmed,  quotes  a  tradition  which  says  that 
'  Peter  appointed  his  successor.'  If,  then,  we  argue,  Irenseus  is 
good  authority  as  to  the  fact  of  Peter's  primacy  at  Rome  as  its  first 
bishop,  why,  we  ask,  has  not  the  Church  of  Rome  imitated  his  ex- 
ample in  this  particular  ?  §  But,  so  far  from  it,  history  and  tradition 
furnish  us  with  at  least  seven  other  modes,  namely : — 1st.  Nomination 
by  the  bishops,  but  election  by  the  priests  and  people.     2d.  Nomi- 

♦  Du  Pin,  Vol.  II.,  p.  206.  t  lb.,  see  Vol.  11. 

I  Riddle's  Ecclesiastical  Chronicles.     Centuries  13.  14. 
4  See  pp.  249,  250. 


'^'  296 

nation  by  the  emperor  or  empress  on  their  own  responsibility, 
and  election  by  the  bishops.  3a.  The  transfer  of  the  whole  power 
to  the  emperor,  by  Leo  YIII.  Of  the  4th,  Barronius  says,  '  They 
(the  popes)  were  introduced  by  powerful  men  and  women.  It  was 
frequently  the  price  of  prostitution  !'*  By  the  5th,  according  to  "  the 
decree  of  Pope  Nicholas  II.,  in  his  Lateran  synod,  '  The  whole  busi- 
ness was  given  over  to  the  cardinals,'  an  order  of  men  not  heard  of 
for  the  first  thousand  years  after  Christ !  This  transpired  a.d.  1059. 
Then  6th.  The  appointment  of  the  popes  by  general  councils,  as 
those  of  Pisa,  Constance,  and  Basil.  Finally,  that  enacted  by 
Nicholas  II.,  constitutes  the  present  mode.  The  popes  make 
cardinals,  and  cardinals  make  the  Pope ! 

"  It  is  now  affirmed,  that  the  intrigues  of  papal  elections  incom- 
parably surpass  the  intrigues  of  any  court  on  earth.  The  politics 
of  France,  of  Italy,  of  Austria,  are  so  incorporated  with  the 
schemes  of  the  cardinals,  or  so  bias  or  bribe  them,  that  on  the  elec- 
tion of  a  pope  it  is  usually  said,  "Austria  has  succeeded,"  or 
"  Spain,"  or  "  France  has  prevailed  this  time."  In  one  word,  the 
papal  chair  is  the  most  corrupt  and  corrupting  institution  that 
ever  stood  on  earth  !  The  Eoman  Caesars,  or  the  Egyptian  Dy- 
nasties, were  pure  and  uncorrupt,  compared  with  this  mammoth 
scheme  of  iniquity"  !  And,  as  a  shield  to  ourselves  against  the 
imputation  of  a  sacrifice  of  Christian  courtesy  and  charity  to  Pro- 
testant 'malice  afore-thought,'  we  shall  take  the  liberty  to  submit 
the  following  testimonials  from  Komanists  themselves,  in  the  next 
section,  regarding  the  moral  character  of  many  of  the  consecutive 
links. 

*  Barronius  Ann.  112,  8,  and  Sect.  141,  1. 


297  •■^' 


SECTION  rv. 

The  subject  continued — Eighth  :  Fallacy  of  the  above  dogma,  as  drawn  from  the 
moral  character  of  the  Popedom. — Barronius,  Mich,  de  Chemaugis,  Prideaux,  Dr. 
Whitby,  the  Emperor  Maximilian,  etc. — Ninth  :  Romish  concessions  of  breaks 
in  this  alleged  chain. — Barronius,  Bishop  Purcell,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio. — Terrific  pre- 
latical  dilemma. — The  attempt  to  escape  from,  by  Protestant  prelatists,  under  the 
plea  that  they  are  not  dependent  on  Rome  for  their  succession. — Subsequent  notice 
of. — Bishop  Purcell's  mode  of  escape. — Fallacy  of. — Tenth  :  Evident  absurdity  of 
the  above  dogma — Makes  the  uninspired  Linus  the  primate  over  the  inspired  apos- 
tle John. — Eleventh  :  Closing  argument. — Palpable  defects  of  the  best  authenti- 
cated lists  of  the  alleged  succession. — The  prelatical  hypothesis  of,  absolutely  ex- 
cludes the  idea  of  an  intervening  break,  as  to  time,  in  perpetuating  the  chain. 

The  Romish  biographer  Plautina  on — Bishop  Purcell — The  "  Register"   reliable, 
only  in  proportion  to  the  uniformity  and  agreement  of  the  chroniclers. 

We  pass  now  to  consider, 

Eighth  : 

The  vioral  character  oj  many  of  the  poniificat  links  in  this  alleged 
unbroken  apostolical  chaiyi,  as  further  demonstrative  of  its  fallacy. 
The  chain  itself,  we  remark,  following  the  Romish  Genealogical 
*'  Register,"  and  counting  from  Peter  to  the  present  reigning  pope, 
Pius  IX.,  is  formed  of  two  hundred  and  fifty-six  links. 

We  will  begin  with  Laurentius.  In  the  struggle  to  sustain  his 
election  against  his  rival  Symmachus  by  the  Emperor  Theodoric, 
A.D.  498,  Barronius  says  that  "  murders,  robberies,  and  numberless 
evils  were  perpetrated  at  Ronie,"  so  that  "there  was  a  risk  of  their 
destroying  the  whole  city."'^  So  of  Vigilius,  the  rival  of  Sylva- 
nius,  A.D.  540.  Barronius  says  of  him,  that  he  was  "  implicated 
in  so  many  crimes,"  that  all  virtuous  men  opposed  him.  Yet  he 
was  made  pope.f  Pope  Stephen  VI.,  A.D.  885,  in  the  exercise  of 
his  infallibility,  not  only  rescinded  the  acts  and  decrees  of  his  pre- 
decessor Formosus ;  but,  collecting  a  council  of  cardinals  and 
bishops  as  bad  as  himself,  he  actually  had  the  old  pope  taken  out 
of  his  grave,  brought  into  court,  where  he  was  tried  and  con- 
demned ;  after  which,  he  cut  off  three  of  his  fingers,  and  then 
plunged  his  remains  into  the  Tiber !  Barronius  says  of  him, 
that  '  he  was  so  wicked,  that  he  would  not  have  dared  to  enroll 
him  in  the  list  of  the  popes,  were  it  not  that  antiquity  gives  his 
name  " ! :{:  At  the  opening  of  the  ninth  century,  the  popes  were 
generally  men  of  corrupt  minds  and  profligate  lives,  obtaining  the 
pontificate  by  the  perpetration  of  the  most  shameful  crimes,  par- 
ticularly that  of  bartering  it  for  gold.     Barronius,  speaking  of  this 

*  Barronius  Ann.,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  .562.  t  Ih.  Vol.  VIL,  p.  420. 

X  Barronius  Ann.     Plautina's  Life  of  Stephen  VL 


298 

period  in  his  Life  of  Pope  Stephen  VII.,  a.d.  900,  says,  "  the  case  is 
such,  that  scarce  any  one  can  believe  it,  unless  he  sees  it  with  his 
own  eyes,  and  handles  it  with  his  hands,  namely,  what  unworthy, 
vile,  unsightly,  yea,  execrable  and  hateful  things  the  sacred  apostolic 
See,  on  ivhose  hinge  the  universal  a'poslolic  Church  turns,  [ !  ! !  ]  has 
been  compelled  to  see,"  etc.  Speaking  of  the  death  of  Pope  Ste- 
phen VII.,  he  writes,  "  Thus  perished  this  villainous  man,  who 
entered  the  shcepfold  as  a  thief  and  a  robber,  and  who  in  the  retri- 
bution of  God,  ended  his  days  by  the  infamous  death  of  the  hal- 
ter^*  Another  writer,  Genbrard,  under  the  year  90-1,  says,  "for 
nearly  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  about  fifty  popes  deserted 
wholly  the  virtues  of  their  predecessors,  being  apostate  rather  than 
apostolic !" 

Again.  Barronius,  under  the  year  912,  says,  "  What  is  then 
the  face  of  the  holy  Roman  Church  ?  How  exceedingly  foul  is  it ! 
When  most  potent,  sordid  and  a,bandoned  women  {meretrices)  ruled 
at  Rome :  at  whose  will  the  Sees  were  changed ;  bishops  were 
presented  ;  and,  what  is  horrid  to  hear,  and  unutterable,  FALSE 
PONTIFFS,  the  paramours  of  these  women,  were  intruded  into 
the  chair  of  St.  Peter,"  etc.  He  adds,  "For  who  can  affirm  that 
men  illegally  intruded  by  bad  women  [scoriis)  were  Roman  Pon- 
tiff's !"  Again.  "  The  canons,"  he  says,  "  were  closed  in  silence  ; 
the  decrees  of  pontiffs  were  suppressed ;  the  ancient  traditions  were 
proscribed ;  and  the  sacred  ceremonies  and  usages  were  wholly  ex- 
tinct." f  The  same  writer  records  the  election,  a.d.  1034,  of  Bene- 
dict IX.,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  !  which,  he  says,  was  accom- 
plished by  gold,  and  he  calls  it,  ("horrendum  ac  detestabile  visce") 
horrible  and  detestable  to  behold ;  and  yet,  he  adds,  that  "  the 
whole  Christian  world  acknowledged  Benedict,  without  contro- 
versy, to  be  a  pope !"  Finally,  under  the  year  1004,  he  names 
three  rival  popes,  whom,  on  account  of  their  enormous  crimes,  he 
denominates  "  Cerberus,  the  three-headed  beast  which  had  issued 
from  the  gates  of  hell !" 

But  Barronius  is  not  alone  in  bearing  testimony  to  the  abomina- 
tions of  the  Papal  See.  In  his  book  of  Simoniacal  prelates,  cap, 
1.  Nich.  de  Clemaugis,  archdeacon  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the 
fifteenth  century,  says,  "The  Church  is  now  become  a  shop  of 
merchandise,  or  rather  of  robbery  and  rapine,  in  which  all  the 

sacraments  are  exposed  for  sale And  therefore  you  see 

such  men  admitted  to  the  priesthood  and  other  holy  orders,  who 
are  idiots,  unlearned,  and  scarce  able  to  read,  etc. ;  and  Avho,  when 
they  read,  pray,  or  sing,  know  not  whether  they  bless  God  or 
blaspheme  him ;"  and  who  are  "  unquiet,  gluttons,  drunkards, 
praters,  vagabonds,  lustful,  bred  in  luxury,  and,  in  one  word,  idle 
and  ignorant." 

*  "  Ita  quidem  possus  facinorus  homo  quique  ut  fur  et  latro  ingressus  est  ovlle  ovium, 
laqueo  vitam  adeo  infami  excitu  vindice  Deo  clausit."      (Barronius,  Vol.  X..  p.  744.) 

t  Barronius  Ann.  a.d.  912,  and  Brownlee's  Letters  on  the  Roman  Catholic  Contro- 
versy, pp.  36,  37.  39. 


299 

In  his  book  also  on  the  con'ujit  state  of  the  Churchy  Cap.  3,  he  sajs, 
"  That  she  was  defiled  with  the  sink  of  all  vices,  and  might  well 
be  called  the  church  of  malignants ;  that  the  saying  of  the  pro- 
phet was  now  verified,  that  from  the  least  of  them  to  the  greatest, 
EVERY  OXE  was  given  to  covetousness  ;"  and  "  from  the  prophet  to 

the  priest,   every  one  dealt  falsely Who,"  he  demands, 

"  preaches  or  declares  the  Gospel  ?  Who,  either  by  word  or  deed 
shows  the  way  to  eternal  life  ?" 

Further.  Pope  Marcellinus  sacrificed  to  Idols.^  The  Popes 
Liberius  and  Leo  were  Arians,  and  Pope  Honorius  adopted  the 
heresy  of  Sergius.  Pope  Hildebrand  also  published  heretical  de- 
crees which  were  burnt  by  a  synod  held  at  Pome.  Pope  Sylvester 
II.  was  raised  to  the  pontificate  by  necromancy.  And,  against 
Pope  Eugenius,  the  Council  of  Basil  pronounced  the  following 
sentence  of  de^DOsition,  viz.  :  "  We  condemn  and  depose  Pope 
Eugenius,  a  despiser  of  the  holy  canons,  a  disturber  of  the  peace 
and  unity  of  the  Church  of  God ;  a  notorious  offender  of  the 
whole  universal  Church ;  a  simonianist ;  a  forsworn  man  {per- 
jurum)  ;  a  man  incorrigible  ;  a  schismatike  ;  a  man  fallen  from  the 
faith,  and  a  wilful  heretike."f 

It  were,  however,  an  almost  endless  task  to  recite  the  variety  of 
forms  and  the  depth  of  moral  pollution,  either  of  the  pontiffs  or  of 
the  Church  of  Pome.  Ambition,  covetousness,  sacrilege,  incest, 
simony,  drunkenness,  adultery,  heresy,  sorcery,  murder,  and  every 
species  of  abomination,  from  the  middle  of  the  third  down  to  the 
opening  of  the  sixteenth  century,  for  the  most  part,  in  one  form 
or  other,  everj^where  prevailed.  Prideaux,+  in  his  "  Introduction 
for  reading  histories,  numbers  amongst  the  popes,  thirty-eight 
usurping  Nimrods,  forty  luxurious  Sodomites,  forty  Egyptian 
magicians,  forty-one  devouring  Abaddons,  twenty  incurable  Baby- 
lonians," etc.  Glaber,  the  monk,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Whitby, 
speaking  of  the  eleventh  century,  says,  "That  all  ecclesiastical 
degrees,  even  from  the  popedom  to  the  door-keepers,  were  op- 
pressed with  damnable  simony,  and  that  this  spiritual  robberj 
obtained  in  all  places."  There  is  lying  before  us  similar  testimony- 
regarding  the  character  of  centuries  twelve,  thirteen  and  fourteen. 
The  Emperor  Maximilian,  a.  D.  1510,  was  wont  to  say,  "0  Eternal 
God,  if  thou  shouldst  not  watch  over  us,  how  ill  would  it  go  with 
the  world  which  we  govern !  I,  a  miserable  hunter,  and  that 
drunkard  and  wicked  (Pope)  Julius."§ 

Now,  from  the  aspect  which  this  exhibit  of  the  popedom,  in  a 
moral  point  of  view,  has  on  the  question  of  an  alleged  unbroken 
apostolicity  (and  against  which  we  beg  the  reader  to  contrast  our 
scriptural  portrait  of  the  characteristics  essential  to  the  Christian 
ministry — Part  II.  pp.  102-105, — viz.,  a  changed  heart,  a  holy  life, 

*  Howel's  Pontificate,  p.  43. 

t  Jewel's  Def.  of  the  Apol    Part  VI.,  p.  536.     Ed.,  1609. 

j  The  supposed  learned  Bisnop  of  Worcester. 

I  Prideaux's  Introduction,  p.  143. 


300 

a  divine  call,  suito.ble  intellectual  qualifications,  soundness  in  doc- 
trine, freedom  from  indulgence  in  a  spirit  of  self  adulation,  of 
jealousy,  and  of  a  love  of  the  pre-eminence),  let  it  be  taken  in 
connection  with  the  sixth  and  seventh  arguments,  the  numerous 
schisms  in  the  popedom,  and  the  want  of  uniformity  in  the  mode 
of  their  election,  and  these  with  yet  another, 

Ninth  : 

Romish  concessions  of  breaks  in  this  alleged  unbroken  chain.  Bar- 
ronius  tells  us  that  "  false  pontiffs  were  intruded  into  the  chair  of 
St.  Peter  by  sordid  and  abandoned  women  ;"  and  he  indignantly 
demands,  ''  who  can  affirm  that  men  illegally  intruded  by  bad 
women  (scortis)  were  Boman  pontiffs  T^  But  we  can  bring  this 
matter  nearer  home  than  this  concession  of  Barronius.  The 
Romish  Bishop  Purcell,  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  in  his  debate  with  the 
Eev.  Mr.  Campbell,  in  1837,  stated  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  that 
^Hhere  were  vacancies^  breaks  in  the  chainl''  !* 

Here,  then,  on  the  prelatical  hypothesis,  the  only  channel  of 
communicating  the  "grace,  in  the  collation  of  holy  orders," 
(Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor) — that  of  uninterrupted  manual  imposi- 
tion, is  cut  off!  Episcopacy,  Romish,  Tractarian,  and  High  and 
Low  Church,  made  to  depend  upon  the  seminal  transmission  of 
apostolic  functions  by  "  the  laying  on  of  hands  ;"  the  vital  spark 
of  each  preceding  link,  by  a  direct  act  of  its  own,  alleged  to  have 
been  transmitted  to  others  through  a  trij[>le  agency,  as  indispen- 
sable   TO    PERPETUATE   ITS   EXISTENCE   IN    ANOTHER "  Cach    having 

seed  in  itself,  after  its  kind,"  and  hence,  "  preserved  as  inviolate 
as  the  succession  of  seedtime  and  harvest,"  or  "as  the  line  of  the 
descent  of  Adam,"  and  yet  that  existence  continued,  though  the 
seed  itself  be  destroyed — the  only  communicating  medium  of  its 
transmission  being  CUT  OFF. 

Of  course,  no  one,  hereafter,  will  venture  to  deny.,  that  Episco- 
pacy is  supported  bv  MIRACLE. 

The  pretense  of  Protestant  prelatists,  (in  order  to  escape  this 
sequence,)  that  they  are  not  dependent  on  the  Romish  line  for 
their  succession,  will  receive  due  notice  in  its  proper  place. 

Bishop  Purcell,  however,  like  an  old  experienced  casuist,  armed 
cajp-a-pie  for  every  emergency,  offers  the  following,  as  an  escape 
from  this  dilemma.  He  says  :  "  The  lapse  of  a  few  years,  before 
binding  together  the  links  of  the  apostolical  succession,  does  not 
affect  the  great  principle"  of  that  succession.  "  We  are,"  he  adds, 
"  no  believers  in  metempsychosis,  or  that,  like  the  supposed  di- 
vinity of  the  Lama  of  Thibet,  the  soul  of  a  deceased  pope  goes  by 
a  hop,  skip  and  jump,  right  off,  into  his  successor.  We  will  wait 
six  months  or  six  years,  to  find  a  good  pope.  If  the  pope  were  a 
poor  v/anderer  in  the  mountains  of  the  moon,  it  would  not  destroy 

*  Debate,  etc.,  p.  144. 


301 

his  authority,  thongli  the  See  of  St.  Peter  should  be  vacant  for 
seventy  years  ;''^^  but,  as  it  happens,  the  question  is  not,  how  the 
soul  of  a  dead  pope  is  transferred  to  another,  but  how  the  grace^ 
under  the  circumstance  of  "  hreahs  in  tlie  chains  can  be  emploj'^ed 
in  the  forging  and  welding  together  of  a  new  link  ?  Certainly,  in 
this  case,  the  only  channel  of  communicating  the  functions  apos- 
tolic, that  of  manual  imposition,  like  the  extinguished  fluid  of  a 
demolished  Leyden  jar,  is  cut  off;  a  consideration,  we  submit,  of 
itself^  decisive  of  the  fallacy  of  the  whole  dogma  in  question. 

Take,  however,  yet  another  argument,  demonstrative  of  the  im- 
possibility of  the  alleged  unbroken  succession.     It  is  drawn, 

Tenth: 

From  tJie  evident  absurdity  which  it  involves.  To  illustrate  this 
point :  "If  Linus,"  for  example,  was  "  the  successor  of  Peter  in 
the  supremacy,"  he  having,  according  to  the  chronology  of  the 
martyrdom  of  that  apostle,  succeeded  him  a.d.  64,  it  follows,  that 
he  must  have  become,  by  virtue  of  his  primacy,  su])erior  to  the 
apostle  John;    a  man  of  the  generation  following  the  apostles 

GREATER    THAN    AN    APOSTLE      HIMSELF,     yca,     GEEATER     THAN 

JOHN,  THE  MOST  VENERABLE  AND  BELOVED  OF  ALL 
THE  APOSTLES ;  and  that  too,  even  when  the  Savior  was  grant- 
ing to  him  visions  of  heavenly  glory — was  sending  by  him  Epis- 
tles to  the  Seven  Churches  in  Asia — was  completing,  by  him,  the 
canon  of  inspiration — was  pouring,  through  him,  the  light  of  pro- 
phetic sj^mbols  which  were  to  illustrate  the  whole  future  history  of 
the  Church  and  the  world.  Linus,  greater  than  John,  and  that,  at 
the  very  time  when  all  the  glory  of  the  apostolate  is  gathered  into 
one  luminary,  from  whose  ample  orb  the  softened  evening  radiance 
is  streaming  over  the  face  of  nature,  while  on  every  eminence  the 
prophetic  watchfires  are  enkindling  in  its  beams,  which,  after  it 
shall  have  descended  below  the  horizon,  are  to  burn  and  illumine 
through  all  generations. f 

Our  final  argument,  demonstrative  of  the  fallacy  of  this  dogma, 
is  derived. 

Eleventh  : 

From  the  tabular  genealogical  register  of  the  Romish  line  of 
succession. 

In  entering  on  this  subject,  we  must  beg  the  indulgence  of  the 
reader  for  our  frequent  intrusion  upon  his  notice  of  that  point,  fun- 
damental, as  we  have  said,  to  the  prelatical  theory  of  an  unbroken 
apostolical   succession,    namely,    the   transmission,  direct,   of  the 

♦  Debate,  etc.,  pp.  144,  146, 154. 

t  See  Stratten's  Scriptural  Argument,  pp.  99,  100. 


302 

grace,  office,  functions,  apostolic,  "  hy  the  hands  of  the  apostlea^"* 
etc. 

Now,  it  is  obvious,  that  this  hypothesis,  in  the  first  place,  ahao- 
lutely  exclndi's  the  idea  of  an  intervening  space^  as  to  time^  in  the 
uniting  the  consecutive  links.  For  example  :  Take  the  liomish 
line.  It  is  essential  to  its  validity,  that  the  hands  of  Peter,  etc.,  as 
the  first  alleged  pontiff,  be  employed  in  the  forging  and  welding 
of  the  link  next  following.  In  him  alone.,  (however  others  might 
have  assisted  at  the  anvil  in  blending  the  second  link  to  the  chain,) 
in  him  alone  presided  the  element,  the  fire,  that  conld  fuse,  and 
thus  prepare  it  for  and  unite  it  to  that  chain.  Accordingly,  that 
standard  Romish  biographer  of  the  popes,  Plautina,  affirms,  "  that 
just  before  Peter's  martyrdom,  he  appointed  Clement  to  he  hishop 
ofRome^''  the  which,  if  this  l3e  so,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the 
chain  said  to  be  "  fastened  to  the  throne  of  God,"  was  rightly 
started. 

Then,  as  to  its  continuance.  The  same  Bishop  Purcell,  who,  as 
we  have  seen,  declares  that  "  there  were  vacancies^  breaks^  in  the 
chain,"  holds  also  the  following  language:  Speaking  of  the  suc- 
cession, he  says,  "  it  has  been  faithfully  noticed,  and  regularly 
perpetuated  in  an  unbroken  chain  of  pontiffs  down  to  the  present 
chief  pastor,  (Pius  IX.),  auspiciously  presiding  over  all  the 
Church"  I*     These,  then,  are  the  points  now  at  issue. 

First.  "  It  has  heen  faithfully  noticed.''''  That  is,  we  suppose  we 
are  to  understand,  the  "register,"  or  catalogue,  exhibits  the  suc- 
cession complete  and  perfect,  for  example,  like  that  of  the  descent 
of  Christ  from  Adam,  etc. 


SECTION  V. 

The  records  of  early  antiquity. — Our  Canon  on. — Eusebius. — His  testimony  defective. — 
The  reader  admonished. — Endless  confusion  of  the  chronicles  of  the  first  links. — 
1st,  Peter. — Flaccius  Illyricus,  Zanchius,  Archbishop  Cranmer,  Dr  Cave. — Peter's 
successor.— Variations  in  the  Roman  Pontifical  Index.— Plautina,  Tertullian,  Rufinas. 
Epiphaneous,  contradicted  by  Irenaius,  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  Augustine.— While 
Bishop  Pearson,  and  Dr.  Comber  differ  from  them.— Cabussate,  Prideaux,  Howell, 
etc.— Papal  authorities,  etc.— Eight  specimens  of  the  first  five  links,  culled  from 
Eusebius  and  others.— Challenge  to  Prelatists  to  harmonize  any  two  of  them. 

But,  indispensable  to  the  validity  of  such  an  alleged  "  Register," 
is  uniformity,  or  agreement,  among  the  chroniclers  of  each  succes- 
sive link  added  to  the  chain  in  the  several  articles  of  the  persons 
by  whom,  and  the  circumstances  of  time,  place,  and  occasion,  etc., 
concerned  therein,  both  ancient  and  modern.  Let  us  then  com- 
meuce  our  examinations, 

♦  Roman  Catholic  Debate,  p.  108. 


308 

I.  Of  the  records  of  earhj  antiquity.  We  now  speak  of  the  age 
immediatelj  following  that  of  the  apostles.  Of  course,  the  testi- 
mony relating  to  this  early  period  is  exclusively  traditionary. 
Our  canon  on  this  point  (and  tor  the  reasonableness  of  which  we 
appeal  to  the  decision  of  the  candid  reader)  is,  that  our  confidence 
in  an  alleged  fact  diminishes,  just  in  proportion  to  the  remoteness 
of  the  witnesses  from  the  point  of  time  when  the  event  spoken  of 
transpired. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  alleged  unbroken  apostolical  succession, 
we  have  proved  the  positive  existence  of  a  chasm  of  about  200 
years^  during  which  period  there  is  a  total  absence  of  any  testi- 
mony on  which  we  can  rely.  Eusebius,  the  earliest  ecclesiastical 
chronicler  of  these  times,  was  compelled,  as  we  have  seen,  to  draw 
his  information  from  what  we  have  shown  to  be  the  exceedingly 
equivocal  testimony  of  Clement  of  Eome,  Papias,  Dionysius  of 
Corinth,  Caius  the  presbyter,  and  Iren^eus.*  Ilis  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory was  penned  about  a.  d.  320,  under  all  the  advantages  which 
the  greatest  familiarity  with  these  earliest  fathers  could  afford ; 
and  the  Episcopal  government  having  at  that  time  obtained  a  firm 
footing  in  "the  Church,"  the  specific  design  of  his  work  was,  as 
he  tells  us,  "  to  rescue  from  oblivion  the  SUCCESSIONS,"!  in 
the  Sees  of  Bome^  Jerusalem^  Antioch  and  Alexandria.  We  have 
only,  however,  to  refer  to  his  own  testimony  of  the  character  of 
the  sources  whence  he  drew  his  information,  as  evidence  of  the 
palpable  uncertainty  with  which  he  was  trammeled  in  the  very 
outset  of  his  undertaking. 

In  Book  I.,  chap.  1,  of  his  history,  he  says  :  "  Acknowledging 
that  it  is  beyond  my  power  to  present  the  work  perfect  and  unex- 
ceptionable, I  freely  confess .  it  will  crave  indulgence,  especially 
since,  as  the^rs^  of  those  that  have  entered  upon  the  subject,  we 
are  attempting  a  kind  of  trackless  and  unbeaten  path."  And  he 
confesses :  "  We  are  totally  unable  to  find  even  the  bare  vestiges 
of  those  who  may  have  traveled  the  way  before  us,  unless,  per- 
haps, what  is  only  presented  in  the  slight  intimations  which  some" 
(viz.,  the  earliest  fathers  above  named)  "  in  difierent  ways  have 
transmitted  to  us  in  partial  narratives  of  the  times  in  which  they 
lived,  etc.ij: 

The  "  bare  vestiges,"  "  slight  intimations,"  "partial  narratives," 
etc.,  of  those  early  times,  then,  and  which  Eusebius  denominates 
"  torches  at  a  distance,"  were  the  only  lights  aftbrded  him,  in  his 
endeavor  "to  rescue  from  oblivion  the  successions"  apostolical; 
an  "  unbroken  descent,"  extracted  from  a  traditionary^  "  trackless 
and  unbeaten  path  ;"  a  continuous  chain,  the  first  link  of  which, 
"  fastened  to  the  throne  of  God,"  reaches  down  to  the  present  day 
with  as  much  certainty  as  the  scripturally  recorded  descent  of 

*  See  pp.  288-292. 

t  Eusebiuss  Ecclesiastical  History,  B.  I.,  c.  1,  p.  14.  Cruise's  Edition.  1833. 
Philadelphia. 

X  Eusebius,  etc.,  p.  14. 


804 

Christ  from  Adam,  but  wliich  Eusebius,  upon  whose  genealogical 
register  all  prclatists  are  dependent  in  starting  it,  declared  it  to  be 
"  beyond  kis  power  to  present  perfect  and  unexceptionable." 

May  we  not  then  be  pardoned,  if  we  entreat  that  those  who,  in 
these  "  last  days,"  the  "  perilous  times"  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
^'  say  they  are  apostles,''''  and  who  allege  it  in  behalf  of  those  whom 
they  claim  to  have  preceded  them  in  unbroken  continuity  "from 
ihe  apostles's  times,"  will  pause.  .  .  .  While,  in  uddition  to  what 
has  been  ah'eady  offered  as  demonstrative  of  the  fallacy  of  their 
dogma,  we  pass  to  an  exhibit  of  the  confusion,  endless,  of  the 
chroniclers  of  the  first  links.     We  shall  begin  with 

1.  "  St.  Peter r  First  then.  In  addition  to  the  evidence  already 
furnished  that  this  apostle  never  was  at  Rome,*  while  Flaccius 
niyricusf  and  Zanchius:];  express  strong  doubts  of  his  ever  hav- 
ing seen  that  city,  Archbishop  Cranmer  says,  "  It  is  not  even 
certain  that  Peter  was  ever  at  Rome."§  And,  to  the  same  effect 
speaks  the  learned  Dr.  Cave.  "  There  is,"  says  he,  "  a  npcorov 
tpevdog  in  this  case  lying  at  the  bottom,  it  being  generally  taken  for 
granted  that  Peter  was  in  a  proper  sense  Bishop  of  Pome,  which 
yet  I  believe  can  never  he  made  good^X  But  admitting,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  that  Peter  was  the  first  bishop  of  Pome,  we 
ask, 

2.  Who  was  his  successor  t  This,  we  affirm,  never  has  been 
and  never  can  be,  determined.  The  variations  in  the  Romanorum 
Pontificum  Pndex,  as  constructed  by  diflierent  hands  from  the 
same  sources  on  which  Eusebius  himself  relied,  furnish  a  clear  illus- 
tration of  the  Babel-tongued  tradition  of  these  early  times.  Take, 
for  example,  Plautina.  lie  makes  Clement  the  first  bishop  after 
Peter,  by  his  own  ajDpointment.  And  yet,  this  same  writer  assigns 
twenty-three  years  to  the  presidency  of  Linus  and  Cletus  between 
that  of  Peter  and  Clement.  How,  then,  could  Peter  have  made 
Clement  his  immediate  successor?  Again:  "Most  of  the  Latin 
authors,"  viz.,  TertuUian,  Rufinus  and  Epiphaneus,  according  to 
Jerome,  "supposed  the  order  to  be,  Clement^  the  successor  of 
Peter."  But  Irentcus,  Eusebius,  Jerome  and  Augustine,  contradict 
these  writers,  and  affirm  that  Linus  succeeded  Peter  ;  Avhile  Bishop 
Pearson  has  proved  that  Linus  died  before  Peter.  Dr.  Comber 
says :  "  The  like  blunder  there  is  about  the  next  pope.  The  fabu- 
lous Pontifical  makes  Cletas  succeed  Linus,  and  gives  us  several 
lines  of  Cletus  and  Anacletus,  making  them  of  several  nations, 
and  to  have  been  popes  at  different  times,  putting  Clement  between 
them;"  while  he  quotes  Bishop  Pearson  as  proving  that  "these 
were  only  two  names  of  the  same  person  ;  and  every  one,"  he  adds, 

*  See  pp.  289-292. 

t  Catalogue,  Testament  Version  I ,  pp.  484,  485.     Ed.  Sec.     (See  Powell,  p.  107.) 

X  Zanch.  de  F.ccles.,  c.  9.      (Powell,  p.  107.) 

\  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  B.  II 

y  Cave's  Goverament  of  the  Ancient  Church,  pp.  9,  10. 


805 

"  may  see  the  folly  of  the  Eomish  Church  which  venerates  two 
saints  on  two  several  days,  one  of  which  never  had  a  real  being ; 
for  Cletus  is  but  the  abbreviation  of  ^wacletus's  name."*  Finally, 
on  this  subject,  the  Papists,  and  Protestant  prelatists  generally, 
make  Clement  thefowih  in  the  line  of  succession  from  Peter. 

But,  it  were  a  needless  task  to  pursue  this  subject  further, 
Cabussate  says,  "  the  whole  question,"  that  is,  of  the  succession, 
"is  very  doubtful."  Prideaux  affirms  that  "  no  certainty  is  to  be 
had"  on  this  subject.  The  learned  Howell,  who,  with  Prideaux, 
was  a  thorough  Churchman,  says  :  "  It  is  evident  how  very  doubt- 
ful and  uncertain  is  the  personal  succession  of  the  Eoman  Bishop." 
Dr.  Comber  concludes  this  point  by  remarking,  that  the  stupidity 
and  fable  here  are  "  a  sufficient  proof  there  is  neither  tnith  nor 
certainty  in  the  pretended  personal  succession  of  the  first  Popes."f 
And  Plautina  acknowledges  that  the  authorities  on  the  subject  in 
several  of  the  following  centuries,  were  full  of  confusion.  And 
he  complains,  saj^s  Prideaux,  that  they  who  were  appointed  Pro- 
tonotaries  to  register  the  passages  in  the  Church,  were  in  his  time 
become  so  ilhterate,  that  some  of  them  could  scarce  v/rite  their 
own  names  in  Latin.:}: 

The  authorities  from  which  are  principally  compiled  the  various 
catalogues  of  the  Roman  Pontiffs  are,  the  early  fathers,  as  above 
— Eusebius — Plautina's  Lives  of  the  Popes — Graveson's  History  of 
Ecclesiastics,  12  volumes,  folio,  Antwerp,  1610-1629 — Mura- 
tori,  Annali  d'ltalia,  12  volumes,  folio,  Genoa,  1773-1778 — 
Lives  of  the  Popes,  by  C.  W.  F.  Walch,  D.D.,  Div.  Profess. 
Gottingen,  8vo.,  London,  1750 — Bowers's  Lives  of  the  Poj^es,  2 
volumes,  4to.,  London — Sketches  of  the  Lives  of  the  Popes,  from 
Gavin's  "  Master-Key  to  Popery,"  1820 — etc. 

Proceed  we  now  to  verify  the  fallacy  of  the  alleged  unbroken 
Romish  chain,  first,  by  an  exhibit  of  eight  specimens  of  the  first 
five  links,  as  culled  from  the  early  fathers  by  Eusebius  and  others, 
DOth  ancient  and  modern. 

1st.  2d.  3d. 

1.  Linus,  1.  Peter,  1.  Linus, 

2.  Anacletus,  2.  Linus,  2.  Anacletus, 

3.  Clement,  3.  Cletus,  3.  Clement, 

4.  Euarestes,  4.  Clement,  4.  Sixtus, 

5.  Alexander.  6.  Anacletus.  5.  Alexander. 


♦  Dr.  Comber,  On  Roman  Forgeries  in  Councils.     Part  I.,  c.  1. 
t  Powell  on  the  Apostolical  Succession,  pp.  108,  109. 
t  lb.  p.  109. 


20 


4ih. 

1.  Peter, 

2.  Anacletus, 

3.  Clement, 

4.  Alexander, 

5.  Evaristus. 


806 

5th. 

1.  Linus, 

2.  Clement, 

3.  Anacletus, 

4.  Evaristus, 

5.  Alexander  I. 


7tli. 


1.  Peter. 

2.  Linus, 

3.  Cletus, 

4.  Evaristus, 

5.  Alexander, 


6th. 

1.  Peter, 

2.  Clement, 

3.  Linus, 

4.  Cletus, 

5.  Alexander. 

8th. 

Peter, 

Linus, 

Cletus  or  Anacletus, 

Clement, 

Euaristus, 


Now, 


Of  these  eight  lists,  the  reader  is  desired  to  compare  only  the 
three  following,  namely,  the  1st,  which  is  taken  from  Eusebius ; 
the  5th,  from  an  anonymous  writer ;  and  the  7th,  from  the  pen  of 
the  Rev.  Wm.  "Watson,  former  Rector  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  Ply- 
mouth, Conn.,  1841  ;  with  the  confident  tone  of  the  advocates  of 
prelacy  in  the  affirmations  of  the  ease  with  which  they  can  demon- 
strate, with  moral  certainty,  their  "  spiritual  descent  from  the 
apostles."  We  hereby  challenge  the  entire  world  of  Prelatists, 
Romish,  Tractarian,  or  High  or  Low  Church,  to  harmonize  any 
two  of  them.  Let  them  go  to  work.  Perhaps  the  ex-cathedra 
announcement  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hook,  of  Leeds — "  Any  bishop, 
priest,  or  deacon  can,  if  he  please,"  may  induce  some  champion 
to  take  the  field.  And,  when  he  has  authenticated  tJie  first  five 
links  of  the  golden  chain,  we  will  assign  to  him  the  farther  task 
of  harmonizing  the  following  lists  of  that  line,  commencing  with  the 
sixth  link,  down  to  his  Immaculate  Holiness  Pius  IX.,  of  1852. 


SECTION-   VI. 


Pive  catalogues  of  the  Popes  of  Rome. — Eusebius,  Chapin,  Watson,  Anonymous,  aud 
Gavin. — The  prelatical  theory  of  succession  excludes  any  break  in  the  chain. — Re- 
view of  the  above  catalogues. — Variations  both  in  names  and  the  number  of — Disa- 
greement between  Chapin  and  Canon  II. — His  omission  to  notice  the  schisms  in. — 
Ornits  Pope  Joan  (a  woman),  the  lOoth  in  Gavin's  list. — Failure  of  the  "Re- 
cord" at  the  very  point  where  all  should  be  explicit  and  complete — Illustrated. — 
First  recorded  instance  of  a  consecration  by  three  bishops,  a.d.  585. 


m 


^ 

HISTORICAL   REMARKS 

i 

3 

n 

1 

C3 
o 

W) 

Instituted  5bZy  Water. 

Instituted  Lineii  Surplice. 

Instituted  Lent. 

Instituted  Sponsors. 

Denied  Baptism  to  Jews. 

Martyred. 

A  Campanian. 

Sent  Embassador  to  Britain. 

Lover  of  Prelatical  Power. 

Superstitious. 

Instituted  three  Yearly  Fasts. 

Instituted  Church  Endowment. 

Died  in  banishment. 

Martyred. 

f 

^  o 

1-3 

Eh 

p 

CNi— t(M-^COCCr-l<MOOOO<M<N 
CN(M                          (M           ,-H,-Hr-li— It— 1 

g 

s 

l^-cococc^Tt^co<^:)cct-0001— 1 

r-l  r-i 

o 

§ 

>^ 

OOOt^^COT-HOii-OOiGOiOO-^     1 
1— 1                  1— 1  1— 1           r— 1           -I— 1                             1 

•n:iay£) 

a 

OOCOOt^T-lt-OOt-CNT— lOi'+lT— |(X) 
Ot— IC0C0rh(»0«0J:^CaOr-l(MC0C0 
T-(i— It— I^HtHt— lrHTHi-HC<JC<JC<J(M(M 

1 

^ 

^ 

i 

Alexander 
Sixtus  I.  . 
Telesphorus 
Hyginus  . 
Pius  I.      . 
Anicetus:}: 
Sorter  ,     . 
Eleutherius 
Victor  I,  . 
Zephyrinus 
Calistus    . 
Urbanus  . 
Pontianus:}: 
Anterus:}: .     . 

.M 

Names  and 

'WANO.NT 

OOC<li:DiOCOt-(NrHOi^T-H>0'^ 
rH,— li— ItHt— It-ItHtHC<ICN(MC<J<:M<M 

•N0S1VA\. 

1— (tHtHt— It— li— IrH,— It— l(M<MC<lCq<M 

•iinjyHO 

OOOOOOt— llO<^^t^OO<:DT-IOilOCO 

T-ic<?co^io^t-ooaiT-t(MCMcoco 

T-lT-lT-tT-lTHT-lT-lT-HT-IG<l(MC<J(M(M 

\ 

•saiaa 

1 

1 

sxia 

oogooot— iioco'^t--oocoT-tC5io<:o 

T-l<MCOTtlkO'^t-00OiT— ICMCNCOOO 
T-^T-lT—lTHT— It-It-It-It— lO^C'^ieMtN*?^ 

» 

Sixtus  I.  . 
Telesphorus 
Hyginus   . 
Pius     .     . 
Anicetus  . 
Soter    .     . 
Eleutherus 
Victor .     . 
Zephyrinus  . 
Callisthus 
Urbanus  . 
Pontianus 
Anteros    . 
Fabianus  . 

d 

X>t—  CX)aJOT-i(MOO-tiiO<X>I;—  OOCR) 

308 


&5 

-^ 

^ 

^ 

p 

.^ 

^ 

cs 

t) 

^ 

^ 

§ 

1— ( 

H 

s 

12; 

fe 

a 

Co 

Q 

?S 

G 

^ 

C^5 

y> 

0 

e 

h-1 

<! 

f^ 

H 

'« 

<1 
0 

i 

s~ 

s 

^« 

<; 

HISTORICAL    REMARKS 

CD 
GO 
•? 

C5 
0 

Pi 

Instituted  Chrism. 

Banished  and  beheaded. 
Martyred. 

Controversy  with  Cyprian. 
Opposed  the  Chiliasts. 
Opposed  the  Heresy  of  Paul. 
Celebrated  the  Memory  of  Martyrs. 
Buried  342  Mtr's.  with  his  own  hands. 
Kinsman  to  Emperor  Diocletian. 
Guilty  of  Idolatry. 

fi 

1—1          COCOCNCO-^Or^T—ICO 
T-H                               CM          i-(          r-l  r-H 

M 

1-1          C<JCOiOO(MCOi-H'^C<l 
■pH                                  t-H 

>^ 

7-(                                      rH                 ,— 1 

•iWAYf) 

00          »0  10  >0  0  10  b-  t^  00  Ci 
(>?         CM  CM  CM  CM  C<1  <M  C<J  (M  C<1 

CO 

Fabianus  ,     . 

Cornelius:]:     . 
Lucius  l.X 
Stephen  I.     . 
Sixtus  II,:]:   . 
Dionysius 
Felix  l.X  .     . 
Eutychianus:]: 
Caius    .     ,     . 
Marcellinus:]: 

•KAisTOJSTV 

-4 

THCOCOOt-'XiOi-OCOCD         -^ 
0  10  »0  i-O  10  10  !■-  t-  00  C5i         0 
G<1(MC<I(M<M<MCM<MCMC<1         CO 

•NOSXVAi 

T— ((MCMiOOOOiC3iiOCO'X>        -rf 
iOiO>-OiO>OK:i':Ot-OOOi         0 
CMG<1C<1(M(M(M(MCMC<ICM         CO 

•NiWVHO 

p 

rHCOCOlOt^ClC3:>lOCOCO          GO 
lOkO>O>O>O>O':Dt^Q00i         0 
CNC^G^G<J(M(M(>;(M<M(M         CO 

•snisasna 

p 
< 

,— IC0C0>Ot-01CiiOC0<X>         CO 
>0  lO  lO  10  0  >0  <X)  t^  CX)  OS         0 
(M  <M  C<1  CM  (M  05  C<l  (M  CM  (M         CO 

rA 

.•  M -J— 

1st  Schisrr 
Novatus,  ven 
Cornelius . 
Lucius      .     , 
Stephanus 
Sixtus  II. 
Dionysius 
Felix    .     . 
Eutychianus 
Caius    .     . 
Marcellinus 
Miltiades* 
vel  Marcellus 

j 

^1 

0          r-t<MCO-^kO'^t--CX)C3:. 
(M         cq(MCM<MC<)CMCMCM<M 

H 


H 


c  ■*-■ 

w  (I) 

3    O 

^  c 

3 

■5  S 

o  p 
Oh  u 
in   o 

"B  < 
S  a 

*  •*- 


809 


f 


o 


i 

i 


!| 


:S 

<) 

e« 

-s 

M 

^ 

00 

d 

l-H 

S3 
O 

o 

O 

H 

1—1 

bX) 

Pi 


S 


W 

!2  fo  S 

^  o  S 

H  EH 


•JsTIAYf) 


"KUaOKV 


•JsIOSXViii 


03 

5;1  >d  '-I 

^  I  M 

O    ^    f-i 


SO 
pq<1 


o 

O  S 

O)  '^ 
u 
O  O 

a  _ 


o 


CO 

PI 


p^ 


<t1 


l<M 


CO  Oi  1— I  O 


-*l 


I  CO  T-H  t^  O  CX) 


bo  C<J 


o  ^ 

Ph« 
I  O  lO 


CN 


lO  C^  CO  CN 


CD  iO 


00  CO  ^  lO 


-*  Oi  T— I  TtH  -^ 
O  O  T-l  T-H  r-l 
CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 


CO  C^ 
CO  lO 

CO  CO 


CO 


t^  lO  OO  CM 

CO  00  Oi  o 

CO  CO  CO  Ti^ 


^  .2 .2 

"^  i^  !-3 
a  oj  o 

Cj     ;3     <U 


02 

DQ         ^    -r-i     -i-^ 

f3    2    S    «=• 


•indYHO 


o 

O 


J— I 


CS 

> 

f^ 


03 


» 


~oo 

T-H 


"^j 

P3 

t/j 

f> 

s 

^ 

ci; 

rn 

N 

i-J 

O 

p 

o 

tsjweq 

lOi  rH  Tfl  CD  CD 

!o  1—1  1—1  CO  CO 
CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

CO  00 

CO 

»o  00  c<i  t- 

00  Oi  O  1-1 

CO  CO  ^  ^ 

00 
T-H 

CO 

IO  O  TfH  CD  t- 
IrH  1— 1  T— 1  CO  CO 
CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

CM     1 

CO 

CD 
CD 

CO 

iO  CO  c-i  t- 

00  Ci  O  1-1 

CO  CO  ^  -* 

00 

1— 1 

-* 

CO 

p 

O  O  ^  CD  t- 
1— 1  T— (  i-H  CO  CO 

CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

lO     1 
CO 

CD 
CD 
CO 

lO  00  CM  t-- 

00  C3i  O  1-1 

CO  CO  xH  ^ 

00 
1—1 

CM 

2  2  S3 


^ 


2  <^ 

1-3  I 


.^^ 


t«    c5    (p    2 


2  ^ 


t^ 


-* 


Q     O  T-H  (M 
y   IcO  CO  CO 


CO 


OO  CD 
CO  CO 


^  ^ 


^  '^  "^ 

o  3  "5 
WHO 

CO 


8i0 


o 

o 

O 
<1 

Fh 
<1 
Q 


« 

^ 

-< 

«4-. 

pel 

P< 

■a 

At 

I-] 

"a 

d 

03 

M 

o 

O 

o 

H 

-*^ 

CQ 

bO 

w 

•§ 

cS  &<  a; 


•NIAV€ 


•MAJS[OJS[V 


•jsrosiyAi. 


•NIJVHO 


<1 


<M  OO 
C<1  tH 


Oi  00  1— I  ^O  CD 


Oi  ^ 


Ti< 


^H   (M   T— I   ,— (  t^ 

Oq  CO  Tt<  CD  <X> 
""^  "^H  "^^  "^i  ''^1 


CO  cq 

00  05 


00  TtH  CO  CO 

Oi  i-H  C<l         (M 
tJH  lO  lO        »o 


3  (-H       .03 


a. 


c/2 


I— I   :3 


a5  0) 


d 

<1 


0     M 
O  TS 


C/^'tdi-:, 


H 

8 


<5 

C<J  O  T-H  t^  CO 
CO  -tH  <X>  CD  CO 

Tt^   "^    "^    "^    "^ 

CM  CO 

00 

TtH  CO  CO 
O  O  lO 

(M  O  T-H  t-  CO 
CO  -tH  CO  CD  OO 

-tH  -H  -iH  -*  -* 

G<1  CD 

00 
OS 
-tH 

-tH  CO  CO 
T-H  <M  (M 
lO  lO  lO 

o 
CO 

(M  O  T-H  00  CO 
CO  -JH  CO  CD  OO 
^th  ^^^  "^  ^^  ^^ 

(M  CO 

TjH   -^ 

00 

TtH  CO  CO 
tH  (M  Oq 

»o  »o  o 

o 

CO 

M      ■  t*      l-H 


CO 

=3  l-H 


„  o^  d;=! 
;/)  ^q  tri  (73  tJR 


t<! 


^ 


O  CO  t-  00 
t}H  tJH  rfl  T^H 


311 


s  ^ 


Ph 


<1 


•S  ^     "*^ 

PI  O      >^ 

c3  ,-^  ,  '^    _, 

I — I  o   f:; 

rQ  CO  -rt 

o 
Ph 


cti 

<v 

ft 

O     CO 


bi  s^  o  ^. 
§  bo  t  "=> 


d 
•5b 

•r-t 

o 


^  d 

O  ta 

d  d 

•43  o 


W 


'M  a 


-73  'T5 

a> 

<y 

rd 

^ 

ro 

C/J 

d 

d 

Cj 

d 

PPPh 

a*  o 
o  +^ 

^    O 

:^ft 


■-d   w 


cS 


r^  ,-,  ^  f^ 
(D  p  +^  f> 
O    ;-,    O) 

-d 

03 


'-^^. 


d 
o 


d   M   is 


ft<i 


o  00 


CD  QO 


O  O  Oi 


bp 
o     . 

^  I 

2  d 
§S 

--%  §    • 

S  dL  ^ 

^        d 

d  <u  ^ 

o  >  t 
^  o  r 


O) 


f-l     Hi 


d 

s 

d 
o 

CO 

p. 


CO     Q 


d 


CO  00 


O  t- 


-t^  l-H  ^ 

<D     CD    -g 
O     O  .1^ 

I    00  CO 
I    1-1  (M 


•^   f^c/T 

<!>  a  [^  • 

7:5    .rt    r-4       8 

3  =^rd  ^ 

-^  -S  ^H  2 
w  S  ®  ^. 

fH    j3  .d  -d 


d^ 

d   ^ 

d^ 
o  a> 

e   b£) 

Old 

t<|     CO 
(D  |i4 


1^ 

•r-llOt~Oi-(T-(G^lOlOOiOO     I       It— i(?q 

I    10  rH  CD  CO  G<1      1    CO  0 
1                                                      1              T-\ 

(M  00 

It-IiO-^OOtHCOCOtH      lt--CO00<M      1 
1            T—l           i—(           rH  ^—^              1                           1—1      1 

C<I  00  CO      1    -r^H  t-  CM  >0      1 
1    T-H                             1 

0  G<l 

CO  CO 
10  10 

10  Oi  0  CO  0  CO  t-  T-H  10  CD  t^  ^  t-  t~-      1 
COCO-^TtHl-^t-t-OiOOOi— li— ICM 
lOiOOiOOiOiOiOCDCOCDCOCOCO 

rHCSlO^aiCDOOCOO-D 
'-HTtHlOOCOt-t-OOOO 
CDCOCOCOCOCOCOCDCD 

' 

ShH 
O    o 


CO  CO 
»0  iO 


CO  CO 
10  10 


tn 


d 


(D  f-i   d 
bD 


h- 1  -^2 


g  I— I   cj   ;:; 


d^pq 
O 


> 


d 

d 

r-i   ,0S 


<D     OJ     ©     H) 


^.^' 


i^^d^S^odiddd 
-^o  <P-<yr-*rf  P  P  ©  o 


d    '^    r^ 

_<5  i:^>ii;_h^_fq  p;__Oj^_pq_pq_ft  WWM^^eSw^><lft<^H^ 


§  w  d 

P  a>   ?-i 

d  2     O 

"S  d'^ 

(D  c3    O 

-  0=^ 


to    ^ 


d 

i=i  s  =^ 

d 

d  .3  "^ 

CD    r-<      0 

^ 

boi^   CD 

c* 

d.t^^ 

CD  CO  10  01  CO  t~  O 
CO  CO  10  i-O  t-  t^  Oi 
10  ^  O  O  10  lO  10 


CO  O  CD  rH  10  00  O 
CO  10  >0  CD  t^  t^  Oi 
10  10  O  UO  O  O  kO 


Augustine, 
A.D.  597. 


CO  CO 
10  «:> 


C0OiC>O-*00O^C000>Ot3i>OOOCN<J5^t— cqcooOCMr^i 
CO'*»OCOi:^^-C3iOOOrHrH'^^-^-s^^^-^^lOkOt-i^t~0000 
iOiOkOOiOiC>OCOCOCDCOCOCDCOCOCDCDCDcDCOCOCOCOCO 


\> 


> 


^   M   ^  i_i   b 
—    S  ._  ^^  iri 


O      P      CO 

.c3 


.;i  dC 


§0*co 

^SSdddddr;;rj(D 
\F'P  'o  ^  <a'^'^  o  o  <D  oo  5"o-^ii2  '^  F"^  2  ^  ^ 
>pHH^pQC^OcOPQPQQpqac^^^&HSWK-<lQ<iK:i 

0iOrH(MC0^l0CDt^(X)C3iOrHC<JC0-^l0C0i:^00aiO 
»OCDCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOt^t^i:^t^t^t^i>-£^t-^-00 


<D  ,    .    CO  d 

fel  ^     d     rj    -J^  CO     - 

P  ^-^  9^  d  P, 

■^.S  -  -S^  d^  t 

13   o  I — '   o  d  -1-^  H 

(H   bfi  ^  ^  S   ^„ 


312 


.s' 

-t:^ 

K 

« 

^ 

w 

0 

l:^ 

B 

.0 

H 

H 

52; 

^ 

0 

w 

0 

g 

W 

<S 

D 

>> 

0 

0 

Si 

^ 

^ 

H 

<\ 

'? 

0 

a 

^ 

S 

^ 

O    o 


p^ 


•XLTAYD 


•KIJYHO 


OS 


•^  _. 


o 

Em 
O 


O     M     C  ^     !-< 
(-(    ^    O    <1^    ^ 

Ph     rf     d     rt 


o     . 


C/2 


Oi 


.<;  ~;  _•  o 

■s-i 


d.^^ 


S.og^_^jO 


<D    S 
^  O  b^  , 

>   r^      g_     ^    faO    g 

'1'   s   s  k>   « 


r^  4*1  'TJ  'Ti 


CO 


Oh  M 

J3 


1^  <i^  tj  Ti  "^ 


D 


o  c^O 

=+H  -T^  .13 
CI 


CD  rO     rt 


^\>Tj}^\>-      CO  aq  Ph  fin  Q  O  Ph  0-1  O 


^  2 
cop 


0 

i    1    1    1    I^S^^  1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1    1 

^ 

0      1    T-H  00  CO  t- 

r-i      1    T-H 

1        1    OS      1    CO  1-1  r-l  0  0      1    CO 

>^ 

1    rH      1    -^JH  ^  CO 
1               1    rH 

ICOt-OOOOiOCOi-H     ; 
1                  tH  r-l          i-H          fM  G<I      1 

-ft  iO  0  CO  r-l  10 

CO  CO  GO  00  0  0 
CO  CO  CO  CO  t-  ^^- 

1^1— It— It— (COCOC<llOCO      1 
It— ICOTtllOOCOi:^OST-l      1 



r-[>     .   2 


>- 


mm'    ' 

<U     <U     M 

fl     d     ^ 


.  ;i<    M    M    M 

+J      r-      r-:      rH 

PI 

c3 


Ti  a  ^  ^  ff  r^  •'^  S  o  o  ci 

d^    d    £1^^^    g    d     CD    CD    o 

M  >^  O  CO  H^  h-j  ry2  OOQIS] 


m 

;^     M 

d     2 

=^  S 

rd.2 


d 


OC0t^TH>0<X)CX)K5T-lT-l 

aDcxjcooooOTHCo-* 

COCOCOt-t-l^-t-t^t^t^ 


CM  t^  CO  <M  10  CO 
)0  10  CO  t^  Oi  T-) 
t^  t-  t-  Xr^  t-  00 


> 


M 

d 
d 

•-      rH      .H      d 

hn  d  d  -^ 


t> 


t>t> 


>^  !>^  !>,d  d  ^. 

Jh       f;H       fH       O       <U 
'     .    Ol' 

D     CD 


(— I  q  5  t— I 


-     <D    O 


O  CO  ^^-scooc:t?Ots3coc^airy:<!i-qco 
co-+i>ocot^ooaiOT— ic<ico->t>ocoj>-oo 

(X)000000000000C55OiOiO5O5<^OiOSO5 


313 


p 


P   o 

Org 


!r^    CO 


^.S  S^ 


>> 


>^ 


o  -j-i  rO 


rcJ    0) 


1=1  n 


rt3     <V 


g     ^     0^     !^ 


^ 
fjj 


Ci    P^ 


c3 


©  r^     CD 


H     <D 


BI 


<I^ 


(i:)    f^    03 
PPhW 


M 


^ 


t/j  d  j/j 
o  '^  p 

S  <^  d 


d  d  tH     . 


c  o 


M 

o 


GO 

O 


.d^  " 

(U   a;  /^ 

nd  T^  "^ 
d  d   " 


'^ 


C-^rd 

dniiirdrj^ 


d  ^^ 


c3 

d     M 

d      O 


in 


^  d 


d  '^ 


M    M    Co     0?  f-M    p. 


CO 


o 


Oi  CO     £ 


CO 


CO  CO  CO  OS     I    G<l  lO  C<1 


o 


xH  1-1 1:-  tH 


>0  (M 


i>.CO     iQOCOt-     ICOOiiOOi— I     ICOO     ICOCO     ICO 


lO 


^ir-  |^t-TtlT:tH0000-*C<)TiH>OT-Ht~ 
C<)<M  l^-^iOOi-OCOt-OOOOOOOiOi 
00  00    00  00  00  00  00  00  00  00  GO  00  GO  00 


o 


o  o  o 

Oi  Oi  Oi 


OS  CN  C<J  00       ni 
O  rH   rH   0;j       -C 

Oi  Ci  Ol  Ol 


l> 


> 


02 


^_d.d 


d    c3 


M 


> 


<D    c_.    O 

^      It:   S   CD 


o 

d 

o 

d 

d 

^ 

nc^ 

O 

d 

d 

d 

J^ 

<1 

o 

O 

d 

^ 

t3 

c3 

rd 

pq^<J 

t-;, 

S<1 

ry} 

d  (D  d 
M  o  9 
O  ,c3    =5 


,  I— I 


><■ 


^  r— 1  .^  I— I 

_         ^  ^   +^   d  -tJ   3 
o  d  CD       .2  "ka  2  "^ 


> 


^So^o^'^J  g^  gd  §^ 


t^^  t ^t-lOOOl-^CMCM-^lOrHCDOO 

T-IC<J  Ol-tH-fllOlOCDt^OOOOOOCiCiOi 

CX)00         OOOOODOOOOOOOOODGOCOOOCOOO 


OOOCOCOCOOCO-flOOOi 
OiOOOOi— ItHt-I(N<M 
OOOiOiOiOiOSOiCiCiCi 


u   t>- 


c3    d    rt 


©  C;  o 


2^ 

d  _o 
b  rJQ  ^5  CQ  S 


Sh     O     OJ 


■r-i        »-l 

^  d 


,^  S  d 


fc 


X! 


M     P 


d  9  d  "' 


^  2 


^  d  o 


M     2     fl  >->  l-H     != 

d  J    O^S_§ 


<J  r/}  C::^  r/}  «  ^  1-^  m  >-3  Q  r/j  <!  ^^3  t-^  i_^  c/3 


-d    (D    "^    C3    o    QJ   -SS 


9h    « 


Oi  O  i-H 

o  o  o 


CM  CO  -+( 

o  o  o 


o  o 


T-H  CM  CO  -f  >0  CO  t^  O)  Ol  O  1— I  (M  CO  -H  >0 
,— IrHi— Ir-li— li— li-Hi-HrH(M01C<lCMG<JOq 


314 


Q 
w 

f 

S 

1 

CO 
W 

1— 1 

o 

ft) 
« 

Cm 
O 

to 

"o 

O 

O  " 

-(J 

a 

'B 

1 

1 

! 

A  modest  and  honest  man. 

Meek  and  devout.                           [persons  !  !  I 

Poisoned  Leo  and  Stephen,  and  200  other 

A  wicked  and  libidinous  man. 

Lived  in  seditious  times. 

A  man  of  peace.     Humane. 

Of  great  innocency  of  life. 

Slain  in  the  act  of  Adultery. 

Restores  election  of  Popes  to  Emperors. 

Died  in  Exile. 

Instituted  the  baptizing  of  bells. 

A  man  of  great  modesty.                [strangled. 

Of  questionable  morals — was  imprisoned  and 

Guilty  of  /Sacrilege^  etc. 

Was  a  good  man. 

Died  in  prison  of  famine. 

Hated  the  clergy,  etc. 

i 

o 

Q 

W 

EJ    r      ^ 

C5   &<   M 

^  o  W 
•NIAT9 

f-t     |,-l    ,-1        1      T-l        1          1          1          1          1                     III                     1                     1 

kJICOr-lOCOl       1       1       1       |i:D|C»|t-|CO00 
1^  1               i-H            1       1       1       1       1             1             1             1 

k^llC^l^COThlTtlOOir-l     100     \    Ol     lO     1       1 

Q     C<J  CO  CO  CO  'tl  '^  lO  i^O  CO  CO  t- t-  t-  t-  00  00     1 

1  . 

o 

Leo  VI 

Stephanus  VII.      . 
Johannes  XL    .     . 
Leo  VIL.     .     . 
Stephanus  VIII. 
Martinus  III.    . 
Agapetus  II.     . 
Johannes  XII.  . 
LeoVIIL     .     . 
Benedict  V. 
Johannes  XIII. 
Donus  II.     .     . 
Benedict  VI.     . 
Boniface  VII.    . 
Benedict  VIL  . 
Johannes  XIV. 
Johannes  XV.  . 

'KldYKO 

.(— icoaiiococc'tii^OG<i^o-*>ocoo5coco 
Plcococo-H'+tiococot^t-t-ooooasOiOO 

J  |OiOiOiCbcbo:)OiOiOiOiOiOi050iOiOO 

John  XL      .     .     . 
Leo  VIL      .     .     . 
Stephen  IX.      .     . 
Martin  III.  .     .     . 
Agapetus  II.     . 
JolmXIL    .     . 
Benedict  V. 
John  XIILf      . 
Benedict  VI.     . 
Domnus  II.  .     . 
Benedict  Vll.f 
John  XlV.f      . 
John  XV.     .     . 
Gregory  V.f     . 
Sylvester  Il.f  . 
John  XVII.      . 
JohnXVIIL    . 

d 

COr^OOOiO'-HtMCO'+liOCOt-OOOsOT-^C^ 
C<l(>1<M<MMCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO-rl"^-^ 
i-(THr-lrHT-lrH,-(r-l7-lT-li-lTHT-lt-lrHT-(i-l 

315 


•s^^ 


^  c3 


<D 


£d    c3    Ph 

*"  a  a  M 


c^ 


bO 
^'    P    4) 

,^    C3    ^  CD  'cS 

£  -S  ^  ^  o 

QDt2    M    S  Ph 


^    (U 


«tl       ?H       JU 


^      S      ^ 

o  o 


«^  ?^ 


M  in 


.2    O 
bO  ^ 


^ ,— ; 

;^  > 


o 

OQ 

w 

O 

Ph 
Ph  '-d 


Ph 


t>  o 

'  a 


SH^ 


O    iD 


c3 


p3    <I> 
rfi     O 
O 

PI 


•  <D   m 

o  o  a 


Q>      o 


'^  CD 


^^a^O^EH^W 


I  1 

o  o 

tH  1—1 

1  1 

1    Oi  OS     1 

1       1    CO  tT)     1    C<1  o     1       1       1 
1       1    rNI             1    CM  <M      1       1       1 

1  1 

1    CO 

1  1 

11-^1 

£-  Oi      1    <M      1    O  GO      1    ^      1 

1-1  CO 

T-l 

CO     1 

t-  CM 

CO  r-H  O      1 
T— 1  1— 1  1— 1      1 

c<i    \     1   iO  CO    1     1   CO  c<j  crci 

II                       II            1— (  rH 

CO  Oi 

CO  CO 

o  o 
o  o 

tH  t-I 

o  o 
o  o 

T-l  r-i 

T— 1  CO  ko    1 

1-1  Ca  CO 

o  o  o 

rH  7-1  T-l 

COt^OOCirHt^t^OOi— (CO 

oooooooooo 

1— (tHi— ItHi— It— It— It— li— li— 1 

ft  i 


t>> 


03  .i:^ 


i 


c  , .  „  o  „  r:  t^  o 


iJ    CO 


Ph  ^  gPM 


<u   Pi 
t^  O 


o  03 


Mt>>    'm 


-So 


S  b 


=5  2  .a 

"^  a  ot5 


'  (—1  '^^ 

pi    O 
I  T3 


'^ 


I— I 


7^     >^  .S     3     "-^     '-' 


ri4   Pi 
o    <^ 


a 


^Pi 

o  53  ,  .  ,   .  _ 


OS  (M 

-*  -* 

tH  CO 

QOai^t^CO(MCOCDt^OiGOOi^O 

O  1—1 

C<1  CO 

^  ^ 

rfl'+liO^O'XJt-OOOOasi— li— ICMCO 

oo 

o  o 

o  o 

OOOOOOOOOOt-It-It-Ii-I 

T— 1    1—1 

rH  1—1 

rH   rH 

1— li— IrHrHi— It— iT-HrHrHi— It— li— It— It— 1 

I— I 
PI 

O 


bo  S  ^  2  <^^ 

CO  e?  o  CO  eg 


p  kJ  >  r/}  :z;  ■ 


^ 
-H 


t^  00 


05  O  t— I  G<1  CO 
"^10  10^0  0 


»0  lO 


lO  to 


Oi  o 
lo  CO 


(:o  CD 


316 


?> 

s 

'■w 

!^ 

p 

8 

w 

e 

Id 

5 

•2 

H 

« 

^ 

5~ 

O 
O 

c3 

^ 

d5 

CO 

o 

5~ 

^ 

t25 

tH 

'^ 

< 

r^ 

o 

« 

s" 

g 

:l 

r/l 

'^ 

0) 
5 

->1 

«« 

CQ 

« 

^' 

d 

o 

o 

H 

02 

a 

pc3 


o  fe  g 
^  o  S 


•JsEIAYO 


'NIJVHO 


O 
o 
■xi 


I 

e3 


M 
o 


>^ 

fl 

a 

?-< 

^-^ 

r^ 

Ti 

rt 

p 
o 

m 

'o 

O 
O 

M 

M 

B 

CO 

O 

o 
o 

M 

d 

CD 

r/5 

73 

t-i 

->j 

^ 

Ti 

a 

rt 

T^ 

^ 

fn 

01 

^ 

^ 

w 

C/3 

tia 

•  S  o 


C5      r-l  'Ti 


Is 


■TJ     O     CD  T? 
Cl>    t^    +?^     ^     ^     r- 


o  h 


I    I  '^    I    I    I    I    I 


g' 


o 

n 

o 


si     IP 


O  (M  t—  lO  T-H  "* 


G<1  O  i-H 


Cq  CS  rH  lO  '^O  -* 


00  T-M  lO  G<1  -^ 


TjH 


;:o  b-  est.  00  -hi  O  CO 

GO  00  Oi  i-H  (M  CO  '^ 
O  O  O  1— I  T-H  1— I  1— I 


>0  CO  ^  OS  T— I  »o  '^ 
^  >0  O  lO  CO  00  oo 


O    rt 


c3    CD 


o 

CD    fl 

on 


^    s    d  ^ 


^ 


d  'en    d 


tj  I— I 

CD     O 


Eiq<l<^<lH^p 


M  I— ( 

2  ^ 

O    0) 

boa 
2  J 


CO^>OCO'*Oii-Hi-Ot^O0i— lOSCDt^ 
^'*'+I>O>0>O0000CX)00c32C35t-I<M 
1— li-Ht— li— It— (t— It—It— (i— It— (r-lT— (C<1C<I 


■1-^        r-i        — 


f> 


2  -^  t-H 


^ 


d 


^t^ 


o  o 
Oo 


2    b  !^    !=> 


o 


go 


o  +^ 


> 

d 

o  X 

d    03 

2<^ 


X  ICO  -H  O  O 

y  I  '£>  CO  CO  o 


-+I  iO 


00  05 


817 


o 
O 


« 

<< 

■ 

kJ 

hfl 

'P 

a 

o 

:5 

1= 

a 
o 

<^ 

Ti  TS 

a> 

a; 

o 


CQ 


^ri3      CD 


Q 


rr-J  H   i-SJ      CO 


K     GO 

c-t  I— I 


^  9 


O     ir;     ^    -i-a    -i-J   -i-a 


^       ■> 


o 

CO 

M 
<U 
O 

o 

S  ^  g 


^  .O    o 


-I  Si 


^ 


Ph 


M  bp^  ?.  +s 


'i^^  a|^-s  --s 


C3  ha-     O-' 


ffr^' 


PhkhH^^P 


^ 


^  o  2  © 

rj     +^      O     +J 
-^^^^ 

-  (D     (X>     0) 
TS     Si     rj     c! 

2    M    P-i  rt 


■^  o 

t>    CD 

r^      CD 

9    .  > 

<D    CO*    O 


W     §H 
^;^ 

CO    3    o 

U    O!^ 

-1-3     £«  r^-l 


o 

p. 

•r'  r75  r-M 
;■<    o  -1-3 

"^   S    g 

CD     Sd    -(^ 

•j::;   *i   CD 


B^lfea^^ 


^ 


S    JTnO 


p-  -M 


bo 


"  .Jn 


P.^ 


CD 


2i 


o  e  o  3 

-e  ^"  •§  S 

.^    ?3^    ^    ?i    n    13    CD 


(X) 


o 


^ 


CO     I    xH  >0  00 


t-  00  ^-i  ^ 


1— (  t-  CO  -<*l  ^ 


CO-^CM'*     ICi|(X)00CiOO'00i:^TH 


COCOt^T-H  |COO^OO<X) 
c3irHC>)Ttl  llOCOCOCOt- 
THCjqc^JCM         CMCNC^G^CM 


T-H  lO  t^  CM 

(X)  00  GO  Ci 
CM  CM  c^  cq 


COCOO^C<lC?qC<)Ot~t3i 
OOi— iOl^>OCOIr-l:^00 
CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  c^:)  CO  CO  CO 


I— I  ?N 


fcb  3  o  !;< 
CD  J=;  cj  QJ 

1—1  ^ 


^^  t>  kJ  >  M  —     -I 

^^>^    c«^^^ 
g    O    O    crS    d    O  .5 

-S  J  2  ^  ^  .2  ^ 


2     <^ 

0.2' 


02     ^ 

■7\   <0 


d  d 

O    (D 


> 


-t-3    <rj 


^    O 


O 


d 

d   1^ 


«o 


"5  2 

2^ 

^5 


(D  •-? 


O  1—1 
CD  t- 
CM  CM 


CO  t- 
C<J  CM 


I— I  lO  00  -*  ^  CO  O  O  CM  CM  CM  CM  T— I  00  CTj  -H  «0  Cji  O  t- 

oooooocjsasooi— (-ti-+o<:oi>-t-ocoooT-<T-H 
(^^(^^c<^c<^cMcocococococococococo^^^'*'^ 


O  1-1 
00  00 


CM  CO 

00  00 


00  00 


cx)  00 


O  rH  CI 

Oi  Oi  OS 


CO  -#  iO  CD  1—  GO  Ci  O 
(3iOSC3S0505C3iOO 
1— It— (t-It-Ht-Ii— lr-l(^4 


CM  CO  -t< 
O  O  O 
C>1  CM  G^l 


O  CO 

o  o 


318 


Tf) 

1-1 

w 

1^ 

« 

>-:) 

m 

M 

'fl 

r1 

« 

o 

o 

o 

H 

OJ 

fcC 

w-H 


O   fn   03 
t^   O   g 

h5 


•KTAVf) 


'KUVHO 


d 

CI 
O 

a 

o  o 

CO 


.9^1 
.>;  a   . 

P    Pi  CO    e3 

^     (73     Ol    OJ 


m 

09 

w 


•5  ^ 
wpq 


15       ^ 

«      I 

•s  § 

CO 

o 


03.2 

MM 

Is 


s  a 


<1J       S       Q;>    -rH 

CO   <i:)   w   ;i 
O  '^    O  ^ 

Phcj  o-,\; 

<K    o    <1^  ^ 

POP  W 


Eh 

rJ3 


^  o 


"+H     -e 


CO 

J5j  CO    O 
!k    q;!   to 


f^ 


c3 


>  o  0)  g 


PI   W 
o  cs  W 

3     -^^     -^      t> 


X 


'^3  t3 


'T3         ^ 


•^     <D    O 


o6 


■73    <U 


•CO  ^ 


>-0 


co-^<:ooococoi>'coco 


O  Oi 


.|CO''-Das      l-^T— It^'X'OO^i— l-^CMCO      |CO(M 
POOO         ■i-ICO'*iO>0<X>t^CX)OsO         i-(<M 


T-tl>-OG0'f'-l-<tlC-1C0C0C0C<lC0Tt(O>0l0 
C0'^0l0':0t^000500i-H(>;(MCO>0  1010 

1— ItHt— It— li— (itHtHi— li— li— It— trHrHi— (rHi— It— ( 


t> 


•^ 


t> 


«  .„^ 


2  ?^  ?. 


.!_;  CO  "^  +o 


!»  .in; 


> 


DhCU 


CO  ,.q  <1  (£1 1^  vJq  <1 


o 


:^>-' 


-c5  _q  ;:^  --2  ^ 


O 


l-^OOOSOi-ICMCOTHOCOt^OO 
OOOT-lr^T—;i— (i— It— It— It— IrH 
(M(M(MCM(M(N(M(M(M<N(N<M 


O  1-1 


CM  OO 


819 


ft  o 

I.? 


"S  H  '^^   i=! 

ho  S     ,L     ^     ^ 


o  p: 


2^1^ 


^  D  e 


c3    OJ 


S     > 


CO 


CO 


U  O 


CO    +^ 

Qj    O 

9.2  lo^^^ 

O)    <U    S    1=1    c3      . 

O 


CO  2 

a   P-,   o)   (X>   c3 


I    I  '^    i     I    I  ' 


o 
f-l 


Ph'S 
^  fco 

^   a   sh 
o  aTi 

o 


a. 


CO  -r^ 

-K  0-1 


Oh 

a 


fin 


8  ^ 


fl    +J     «     CO 

c  ap  «« 

>    ;=!    c3    O) 


03 


?^    «-,    Q? 


be  c3 
c3    -,  cS 


d  3 


a>   o 


tn     2     PL,  Ph  d^  P^  O 
O  r.d     O     O     r3     O 


O    ^    >        _  _ 

fLj  E£]  [v^  ClJ  E^  S^^rf}<X^^<'^ 


CO 
CM 


C^  T— I  iO  o 


oo 


CO  lO 


CqCOCDCOCMCO-rHCO 
r-l  T-H  <?q 


oqcO'^O     |<»<:ot^QOOi     I      lOiO 
THr-ir-lrH  t— iT-tr- It— It— I  T— ItH 


'^OC^-^iOt-^OOOl'T— ICItH^ 


"       +3    I i 

<iOCn 


I—! 


w    a;i  i-H  I— I 


*  ""^  k>  I— • 
^_,  ).<j  I— I  p. 

13 


>'p  s  rt  S'8  |>^>-* 


^M 


to   b£)  ^   ^   b£i  o   ci 

.2  g.^-S  £  a  § 


9  a  s 

bJ3  ^   O 


t^Oc/^tDO^OPf^HOH^^ 


0) 

hH 

r^ 

-TS 

+i 

-1-2 

s 

pH 

rt 

a 

a  J 

<u 

y. 

a 

a 

<u 

o 

< 

OO 

H     •       I— I    ja 

,      ,   f>  I— I   ^T   I— I         » 


S  ^  F^ 


CD 


OiOOlOOOr- iCMOiOT— ICO'*»Ot^O<XJOST-<OT— I'^OOGOOiiO 
»0<:0X-CCCiC;.Ci0iOOC^CM^^':0t--t-000iOG<lOTC0'+li0'X)J>- 


• 

• 

1— 1 
1— 1 

1— 1 

>— 1 

!>■ 

►— 1 

>< 
1— 1 

>— 1 

1— 1 

•     •     •     • 

X* 

1—1 

> 

»— I 

y~. 

hH 

'A 

1— H 

1— 1 
(— 1 

<11 

-+7 

1— 1 

hH 

hH  hH 

hH   hH 
hH   hH 

-J- 

hH 
hH 

hH 

XIII.  . 

XIV.  . 

1— 1 

> 

>>  > 
^  =«  c: 

o 

id 
o 

o 

>^     o  a 

-(-3 

n 

c3 

+2 

c3 

cp 

G.2 

1:5  "S  ►-^ 

G            G       K;^ 

CD     D  P* 

m 

m 

to 

fcO  o 

a 

^^-^    boS 

n 

X 

a 

?3 

o 

X 

o 

d 

O 

OJ 

H 

0* 

a  a  OO 

3 

'd!, 

9 

0) 

a 

?1       O       ^       O)    r^ 

1— t 

o6 

tD 

^ 

1— 1 

O 

G 

hH 

PQOPCOOPL, 

-^ 

»o 

•^ 

j^ 

r 

o 

— , 

,_ 

Ol  CO  -+i   lO 

c:d  1— 

rf: 

'^l 

, — * 

T— t 

Tl 

or. 

-f 

lO 

<d 

1— 

CX)  Oi  o 

<M 

fM 

fM 

OT 

OT 

cmcocococococococococO'+I'+|"*^'*-+'-*-^'+|'*k:i 

<M<MC-J<?^C^C^(MC<JGqC^C<J<7^C^l(M(M013^<^«(M 

CM  01  r^-K 

CM  CM  CN  (M  CM 

320 


?>. 

K 

'ts 

p 

g 

w 

« 

p 

^ 

P 

•J 

o 

P 

\^ 

^ 

o 
o 

to 

<o 

H 
P 

'^ 

o 

CO 

o 

W 

p 
< 

t^ 

H 

■>! 

<1 

§ 

o 

^ 

s 

Jl 

HISTORICAL    REMARKS 
(Referring  to  Gavin's  List  of  the  Popes). 

Jansenists  persecuted. 

Learned  and  liberal. 

Opposes  the  Jansenists. 

Friend  of  the  Jesuits. 

Probably  poisoned  by  the  Ex-Jesuits. 

Died  a  prisoner  to  Bonaparte. 

Crowned  Bonaparte  Emperor  of  the  French, 
Dec.  2,  1804 ;  by  whom  he  was  deprived  of 
all  his  territories  in  1808,  and  made  pris- 
oner in  1811. 

LENGTH 

OF 

TERM. 

P  1    1     1     1     1     1     1     1 

^'r  1  1  1   M  1 

kJ  1  O  Gvl  00  rH  CO  i,--  CO 

•KIAYO 

.     O  O  C/D  Ol  lO  Oi  T— 1 

p    CO  -+I  lo  xi  t-  CD  1-1 
•    1^  1:^  1^  t^  1^  t^  CO 

'      t—ItHi— It— li— It—It-I 

Benedict  XIII. 
Clement  XII.    . 
Benedict  XIV. 
Clement  XIII.  . 
Clement  XIV.  . 
Pius  VI.  .     .     . 
PiasVIL*  .     . 
Leo  XII.      .     . 
PiusVIIL    .     . 
Gregory  XVI.  . 
PIUS  IX.    .     . 

•NIJYHO 

p 

O  OO  C5  1— 1  o 
O  CM  01  CO  -* 
GO  GO  00  CO  QO 
tH  T— I  T—l  tH  r-l 

1^ 

PiusVIL     .     .     . 
LeoXIL      .     .     . 
PiusVIIL   .     .     . 
Gregory  XVI.  .     . 
PIUS  IX.    .     .     . 

i 

i-ICMCO'*iO':Oi:-GOOSOTH 
lOOlOOlOxOiOiOiOCOCO 

cMC^(M(McqG^(?q(M(?:icqoq 

o 


321 

Now,  in  casting  his  eye  over  this  exhibit  of  the  Romish  genea- 
logical line, — and  keeping  in  view  the  fact,  that  the  theory  of  an 
unbroken  apostolical  succession  (involving,  as  it  does,  the  transfer, 
direct,  of  the  grace,  office,  functions,  apostolic,  to  those  who,  hav- 
ing been  duly  baptized,  had  been  previouslj-  ordained  deacons  and 
priests, — "  by  the  hands  of  the  apostles"  and  their  successors, — 
three^  or  at  least  two^  consecrators,  being  requisite  to  the  validity 
of  eacli  act)  absolutely  excludes  the  idea  of  an  intervening  space, 
as  to  time,  in  the  uniting  the  consecutive  links ;  we  ask  the  reader 
to  bear  in  mind  in  the  first  place,  that  the  authorities  from  which 
are  compiled  the  various  catalogues  of  the  Eomish  bishops,  are 
oj-iginally  derived  from  their  own  standard  writers,  respecting 
which  "  unbroken  succession,"  Bishop  Purcell  assures  us,  "  It  has 
been  faithfully  noticed  and  regularly  perpetuated  in  an  imhroken 
chain  of  Pontiffs  doAvn  to  the  present  chief  pastor,"  Pius  IX., 
"  auspiciously  presiding  over  all  the  Church." 

We  ask  him  in  the  next  place,  to  weigh  candidly  the  following 
facts,  as  presented  on  the  face  of  the  above  catalogues,  namely  : 

(1.)  That,  in  a(«ldition  to  the  'confusion  worse  confounded,'  pre- 
sented in  our  exhibit  of  the  eight  examples  of  the  first  five  links 
in  the  alleged  chain,  in  the  aggregate  lines,  the  first  four  commence 
the  sixth  Pope  with  Sixtvs  I.,  while  Gavin,  following  Plautina,  gives 
Alexander^  the  lines  continuing  to  vary  down  to  95.  Then,  from  96 
to  104,  Chapin  and  Gavin  run  together.  And,  from  105  to  the 
end  of  the  two  catalogues,  the  utmost  confusion  prevails,  there 
being  no  correspondence  either  as  to  the  order  of  the  succession, 
or  the  number  of  the  Popes, — ^Chapin  making  the  whole  number 
255,  Gavin,  261 ;  while  the  Romish  "  register"  gives  256  as  the 
true  amount. 

(2.)  Chapin,  having  informed  us  that  Urban  IV.  the  180th,  and 
Gregory  XIII.  the  20od,  in  his  catalogue,  Avere  archhishoj>s  at  the 
time  of  their  consecration ;  and  also  that  there  were  fifty-one  who 
were  hishoj?s  at  the  time  of  their  election  to  the  Pontificate,  states 
also,  that  eleven  were  deacons  only,*  and  that  Fabian  the  19th  in 
the  line,  and  John  XIX.  the  l-15th,  are  known  to  have  been  lay- 
men. Query.  What  then,  in  reference  to  these  last,  becomes  of 
the  canon  which  enacts,  that  "that  ordination  has  been  judged  in- 
valid^ where  the  person  ordained  bishop  had  not  been  pkhviouslt 
ouDAixKD  a  deacon  and  a  p7'iest^  that  is,  ordination  per  saltum, 
does  not  convey  the  grace  ?"  Then  again.  What  were  the 
other  189  at  the  time  of  their  consecration  ?  For  example,  Bene- 
dict IX.  the  146th  in  his  list,  and  whom  Barronius  says  was  onl}'- 
12  years  old  at  the  time  of  his  consecration  ?     Then  further  : 

(8.)  It  may  occur  to  the  reader,  after  our  exhibit  of  the  numer- 
ous schisms  in  the  popedom,f  as  not  a  little  singular,  that  Chapin 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  pp.  354,  346. 
t  See  pp.  293-295. 

21 


322 


atudiously  avoids  in  his  catalogue,  the  least  recognition  of  them. 
Once  more. 

(4.)  Why  does  Mr.  Chapin  omit  Pope  Joan,  the  105th  in 
Gavin's  list,  from  his  catalogue  ?  The  fact  that  this  pope  was  a 
woman^  remained  undisputed  for  six  or  seven  centuries  after  her 
occupancy  of  the  papal  chair.  Marianus  Scotus  was  the  first  writ- 
er to  authenticate  the  following  circumstances  respecting  her,  to 
wit :  that  she  was  born  in  Mentz,  and  having  disguised  her  sex, 
traveled  to  Athens  and  throughout  Greece,  and  having  acquired 
a  competent  knowledge  of  literature,  she  came  to  Komc,  was  ad- 
mitted to  holy  orders,  and  at  length,  by  unanimous  consent,  on  ac- 
count of  her  excellent  conduct,  and  great  learning,  was  elected 
pope.  She  became  pregnant  by  a  servant,  and  died  in  child-birth 
when  going  to  the  Lateran.  To  prevent  the  recurrence  of  a  simi- 
lar disgrace,  the  jpoi^jphyry  chair  was  ordained,  to  determine  the 
sex  of  a  newly  elected  pontiff.  It  was  not  until  since  the  Reform- 
ation^ that  this  fact  has  been  disputed.  And,  in  the  controversy 
which  it  has  elicited,  Protestant  prelatists  have  exhibited  as  much 
zeal  as  the  Romanists  themselves,  in  bringing  it  into  discredit.* 
Again,  ^  , 

(5.)  In  regard  to  the  "  register'''  itself  We  submit,  that  it  total- 
ly fails  at  the  very  point  where^  to  entitle  it  to  our  confidence,  all 
should  be  explicit,  clear  and  complete.  Prelatists  admit  the  ne- 
cessity of  such  a  fullness  of  detail,  to  this  end,  by  their  mode  of 
exhibiting  the  fragmentary  catalogues  of  modern  successions. 
Take  in  illustration,  the  following,  in  the  Anglican  line — 


Name  of  Bishop.  Diocese. 

1.  Henby  Standish,     St.  Asaph, 
War.  Reg.  21. 


2.  John  Voysey,  Exeter, 

War.  Reg.  22. 


3.  John  Longland,        Lincoln. 
War.  Reg.  23. 


4.  Thomas  Ceanmee,    Canterbury, 
Cran.  Reo^.  4. 


Consecrators. 

July  6,  1715. 
Warham.  Canterbury, 
Sherborn,  Chichester, 
John  Young,  Titular  Bishop. 

Nov.  6,  1715. 
Warham, 
John  Rochester, 
Thomas  Leighlin. 

March  5,  1721. 
Warham, 
Fisher  (Cardinal), 
John  Exeter,  2. 

March  30,  1533. 
John  Lincoln,  2, 
John  Exeter,  2, 
Henry  St.  Asaph,  1, 


*  See  Spanheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  350. 
Appendix,  E. 


See  also  further  on  this  subject, 


323 

Now,  this  principle,  applied  to  THE  FIRST  LINKS  in  tliat  chain 
which,  "  at  its  beginning"  is  alleged  to  be  "fastened  to  the  throne 
of  God,"  would  place  the  evidence  in  its  behalf  as  a  /act,  beyond 
the  power  of  resistance.  But,  as  we  have  said,  where  such  fullness 
of  detail  in  the  "registerof  those  who  are  counted  by  genealogy"  is 
indispensable  to  authenticate  its  truth,  there  is  a  total  blank.  This 
is  true  of  all  the  so-called  catalogues  of  the  primitive  age — Jerusa- 
lem^  Alexandria,  Antioc/i,  Epliesus.,  and  Rome.  The  chasm  of 
which  we  have  spoken  in  reference  to  this  the  most  important 
period  of  all,  has  never  been  and  can  never  be,  bridged  over. 
But  we  find  that,  just  at  that  point  of  time  when  the  predicted 
"  falling  away"  from  the  New  Testament  faith  and  order  of  the 
Gospel  mentioned  by  Paul,  had  sufficiently  developed  itself  in  the 
aspirations  of  ecclesiastics  after  '■'■  the  pre-eminence,''''  to  give  form 
and  consistency  to  a  hierarchy  yet  in  embryo,  commenced  the 
entry,  into  the  newly  opened  "  register,"  of 

Bishops  of  Rome.  Consecrated. 

18.  Anterus,  Nov.  21,  a.d.  235. 

19.  Fabian,  Jan.  11,     "     236. 

20.  Cornelius,  May  24,     "     251." 
etc.  etc. 

But  even  here,  it  will  be  observed,  there  is  yet  one  grand  defect. 
There  is  no  record  of  the  three  canonical  consecrators,  without 
whose  agency  the  links  cannot  be  joined.  Indeed,  so  far  from  this 
being  the  order  observed  in  the  consecration  of  the  Popes,  the 
Jirst  recorded  instance  of  a  consecration  by  three  bishops,  is  that 
of  Pope  John  V.,  marked  as  the  82d  in  Chapin's  list,  a.d.  685,  on 
which  occasion  officiated  the  three  bishops  of  Ostium.,  Portiis,  and 
Valiturnum,  which  practice  was  subsequently  adopted  by  his  suc- 
cessors. 

As  the  next  chapter  will  treat  of  the  Anglican  Succession,  we 
shall  append,  as  a  suitable  introduction  thereto,  in  the  first  section, 
an  historical  sketch  of  the  rise  and  development  of  the  theory  of 
Episcopacy,  as  erected  on  the  platform  of  Expediency  alone. 

♦  See  Chapin's  Catalogues,  Primitive  Church,  etc.,  pp.  284,  291*295,  etc. 


324 


CHAPTER  YI. 

THE    ANGLICAN    LINE    OF    THE  ALLEGED    UNBROKEN  SUCCESSION. 

SECTION   I. 

Episcopacy,  as  founded  in  expediency  alone. — Recognized  the  perfect  equality  of  Bish- 
ops and  Presbyters. — Was  adopted  as  an  ecclesiastical  arrangement  only. — Jerome 
on. — An  unwarrantable  innovation  of  the  New  Testament  ministry. — Jerome. — 
Originated  the  distinction  in  ecclesiastical  titles. — Amalarius,  Theodoret,  Bingham, 
etc. — A  mere  human  device. — Formed  the  germ  of  Prelacy  and  the  Papacy. — 
Prelatical  denial  of  primitive  parity. — Answer. — Jerome. — Bingham. — Diocesan 
Episcopacy. — Archbishop  Whately  on. — Ministerial  parity  affirmed  by  Bishop 
Mcllvaine  to  be  unknown  to  the  Church  till  the  sixteenth  century. — Answer. — 
Proof  of  its  New  Testament  origin  and  primitive  prevalence. — Was  adopted  by 
the  first  Anglican  Reformers. — Principles  on  which  it  may  be  adopted  or  re- 
tained.— Appeal  to  those  who  are  really  Low  Church. 

Having  had  occasion  in  the  preceding  pages,  to  advert  inci- 
dentally to  that  theory  of  Episcopacy  which  is  founded  in  expe- 
diency only,  and  a  proper  understanding  of  it,  in  contrast  with  the 
various  forms  of  development  of  the  system  of  prelacy  being  in- 
dispensable to  an  elucidation  of  what  is  to  follow,  we  shall  appro- 
priate the  present  section  to  an  exhibit  of  its  historic  rise,  progress, 
results,  etc. 

AVe  remark  then,  first,  that  this  theory  of  Episcopacy  is  a  totally 
different  affair  from  that  which  claims  for  it  an  apostolic  origin, 
jiure  divino.  It  is  conceded  by  anti-prelatists,  that  the  former  the- 
ory was  brought  into  practical  operation  at  an  early  period  of  the 
2)08t-aj)OstoliG^age.  It  originated  in  the  always  plausible  plea  of 
necessity.  The  exigencies  of  the  Church,  it  Avas  argued,  demanded 
it,  as  better  adapted  to  good  government,  the  eradication  of  heresy, 
etc.,  but  that  it  fully  recognized  the  fraternal  character  or  perfect 
EQUALITY  of  tlic  oflicc  and  functions  of  the  elders^  -npeaiSvTepoi,  and 
his/iojjs,  e-moKOTToi,  of  the  New  Testament  age,  and  that,  primitively, 
it  was  held  to  be  a  purely  ecclesiastical  arrangement,  I  have  shown, 
not  only  from  the  interchangeable  use  of  the  above  titles  as  applied 
to  the  same  person,  but  also  from  the  declarations  of  prelatists 
themselves,  confirmed  by  the  writings  of  the  purest  ages  of  early 
antiquity,  and  the  testimony  of  all  the  Christian  churches  in  the 
world.     The  learned  Jerome,  who  attained  the  zenith  of  his  great- 


825 

ness  in  the  early  part  of  the  fifth  century,  having  thoroughly  can- 
vassed the  writings  of  the  early  fathers  on  this  subject,  holds  the 
following  language :  "  If  any  suppose  that  it  is  merely  our  opinion, 
and  not  that  of  the  Scriptures,  that  bishop  and  presbyter  are  the 
same,  and  that  one  is  the  name  of  age^  and  the  other  of  o^^ce^  let 
him  read  the  words  of  the  apostles  to  the  Philippians,"  etc.,  and, 
having  argued  the  point  from  this  and  other  passages,  he  adds : — 
"  These  things  I  have  Avritten,  to  show  that  among  the  ancients^ 
presbyters  and  bishops  were  the  same  ;  but,  ny  liitlk  and  little," 
says  he,  "  that  all  the  seeds  of  dissension  might  be  plucked  up,  the 
whole  care  was  devolved  on  one  j  as  therefore,  iho.  2)reshyter8  know 
that  BY  THE  CUSTOM  OF  THE  Churcii  they  are  subject  to  him  Avho  is 
x\m\v  jji^esident,  so  let  the  bishops  know  that  they  are  above  pres- 
byters more  hy  the  custom  of  the  Church  than  by  the  true  dispen- 
sation of  Christ,  and  that  they  ought  to  rule  the  Church  in  coni- 
mon^  imitating  Moses,  who,  when  he 'might  alone  ride  the  people 
of  Israel,  chose  seventy  with  whom  he  might  judge  the  people."* 

But,  the  histrionic  sequel  of  this  arrangement,  however  pure  the 
motives  of  those  with  whom  it  originated,  carries  with  it  the  evi- 
dence, that  it  was  an  unwarrantable  innovation  upon  that  divinely 
appointed  order  of  things  designed  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  for 
the  permanent  and  ordinary  upbuilding  and  edification  of  the 
Church,  till  the  end  of  time.  I  affirm  of  it,  that  it  formed  the  first 
step  of  departure  from  that  platform  apostolic,  wdaich,  while  it 
wisely  provides  for  a  diversity  in  the  functions^  yet  stands  so  un- 
mistakably antagonistic  to  any  the  least  rliversity  of  ra/tk^  in 
the  ministry  of  Christ's  Church.  "  The  elders  that  rule  well  are 
counted  worthy  of  double  honor,  esjjecially  they  (that  is,  of  the 
elders,)  who  labor  in  word  and  doctrine."  Here,  a  diversity  of 
functions  is  declared  to  be  entirely  consistent  with  identity  of 
ofilce.  Wherefore,  then,  depart  from  that  system  of  ecclesiastical 
regimen  in  which  inhered  all  the  powers  and  functions  commen- 
surate with  the  utmost  exigencies  of  the  Church  through  all  time, 
and  every  where?  It  provided  for  the  incidcation  and  defense  of 
scriptural  "doctrine,"  for  the  interpretation  of  the  "word,"  for 
general  edification,  and  for  the  good  government  and  discipline  of 
the  Church:  in  a  word,  as  "built"  upon  that  "foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets,"  of  which  "  Jesus  Christ  himself  is  the  chief 
corner-stone  ;"  it  was  "  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  and  for 
correction  and  instruction  in  righteousness;"  "the  man  of  God" 
recpiired  nothing  more  to  make  him  '"'■  perfect^  thoroughly  fur- 
nished unto  all  good  works^  Since,  then,  no  necessity  existed 
therefor,  there  is  no  principle  which  could  justify  a  departure  from' 
such  a  regimen.  Jerome  tells  us  in  what  that  regimen  consisted. 
"/•*/'<?.<,-6yfer5,"  says  he,  "  ruled  the  Church  in  common^''''  the  only 
other  Church  officer  was  that  of  deacon.  Thus,  Clemens  Romanus  : 
"  The  apostles,"  he  writes,  "preaching  through  countries  and  cities, 

*  See  Treatise,  Part  III.,  Chap.  X. 


326 

appointed  the  first  fruits  of  their  conversion  to  be  bishops  and  dea- 
cons over  such  as  should  afterwards  believe,  having  first  proved 
tliein  by  the  spirit;  nor  was  this  anything  new,  seeing  that  long 
BEFORE,  it  was  written  concerning  bishops  and  deacons  :  For  thus 
saith  the  Scriptures,  in  a  certain  place,  I  will  appoint  their  overseers 
(bishops)  in  righteousness,  and  their  ministers  (deacons)  in  faith." 

But,  the  fell  spirit  of  innovation  having  been  evoked,  the  estab- 
lishment, as  above,  of  a  system  of  Episcopacy  on  the  ground  of 
expedienc}^,  I  affirm,  was  hut  the  laying  of  the  corner-stone  of  that 
foundation  on  which  was  subsequently  erected  the  hierarchy  of 
Eomc  !  "  By  little  and  little,"  as  Jerome  hath  it,  the  stealthy 
footsteps  of  ecclesiastical  aspirants  after  "  the  pre-eminence^^^  con- 
tinued their  aggressions  on  the  New  Testament  and  early  post- 
apostolic  constitution  of  the  ministry  etc.  of  the  Church,  until 
Episcopacy,  at  first  founded  on  the  principle  of  expediency  alone, 
was  e.Kchanged  for  Episcopacy  by  Divine  right  ;  the  bishop,  at 
first  chosen  by  his  compee7-s,  the  presbyters,  and  appointed  by 
them  to  preside  over  ministers  and  people  as  their  superintend- 
ent— called  by  St.  Ambrose,  "  inter  Preshjteros  prl/nws,^'*  or 
^^ primus  Presbyter ^^^^  and  which  arrangement  Jerome  tells  us  was 
adopted,  not  on  the  ground  of  Divine  appointment^  but  "  BY  the 
CUSTOM  OF  THE  Church" — an  arrangement  which  the  early  fathers 
contended  to  be  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  the  perfect  equality 
OF  DIVINE  EIGHT  between  him  who  superintends,  and  those  who  aro 
superintended — this  bishop  soon  came  to  arrogate  to  himself  a  supe- 
riority of  official  rank  over  those  of  his  compeers  of  the  presbyte- 
rate,  as,  by  divine  right  above,  and  entirely  sejiarate  and  distinct  fro'/n, 
that  of  the  presbyterate. 

Hence  the  origin,  in  early  antiquity,  in  accommodation  to  the 
order  of  things  in  this  newly  fledged  hierarchy,  of  a  distinction  of 
ecclesiastical  titles.  This  circumstance  is  thus  alluded  to  by  Ama- 
larius,  in  a  citation  from  Ambrose  :  "  They,"  says  he,  "  who  are 
now  called  bishops,  were  originally  called  apostles ;  but  the  holy 
apostles  being  di:ad,  they  who  were  ordained  after  them  to  govern 
the  churches,  could  not  arrive  to  the  excellency  of  those  first,  nor 
had  they  the  testimony  of  miracles,  but  were  in  many  respects  infe- 
rior to  them ;  therefore,  they  thought  it  not  decent  to  assume  to 
themselves  the  name  of  apostles,  but  dividing  the  names,  they  left 
to  presbyters  the  name  of  the  presbytery,  and  they  themselves 
were  called  bishops.":]:  To  the  same  elfect  writes  Theodoret,  a  con- 
temporarj'^  of  Ambrose,  as  quoted  by  Bingham,  "  The  same  per- 
sons were  ancientl}^  called,  promiscuously,  both  bisliops  and  pres- 
byters, Avhilst  those  who  are  now  called  bishops,  were"  (then) 
"  called  apostles ;  but  shortly  after,  the  name  of  apostles  was  ap- 
j)ropriated  to  such  only  as  were  apostles  indeed;" — that  is,  "the 

♦  Comment,  on  1  Timothy  3.  t  Comment,  on  Ephesians  4. 

X  Ambrose  tlourislied  in  the  fourth  century. 


327 

twelve" — "  and  then  the  name  hishop  was  given  to  those  who  be- 
fore were  called  apostles,"  etc. 

A  remark  or  two,  in  passing,  regarding  the  above.  Bingham, 
on  the  authority  of  Theodoret,  sajs,  that  during  the  apostles's  days, 
"  the  appropriate  name  of  iis/iops,  to  distinguish  them  from  mere 
presbyters,  was  that  of  apostles."  But  where,  I  ask,  is  the  au- 
thority for  this?  Certainly,  not  in  the  New  Testament.  The 
"  apostles"  are  there  sometimes  called  presbyters,  but  never  bish- 
ops !  It  is  a  bold  flibrication,  noio  intended,  as  it  was  by  the  early 
ecclesiastical  writers,  to  bolster  up  a  system  of  purely  human  ori- 
gin, under  the  pretext  of  a  claim  in  its  behalf,  founded  in  divine 
right. 

I  repeat,  a  system  of  purely  human  origin.  This  is  demon- 
strable from  the  statements  themselves  as  made  by  Ambrose  and 
Theodoret,  For  how,  it  may  be  demanded,  on  the  modern  prela- 
tical  hypothesis  of  an  alleged  unbroken  apostolical  succession, 
could  the  hands  of  the  apostles  be  employed  in  the  transmission, 
either  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  their  functions  to  others,  when  they 
were  "  dead"  ?  Clearly  then,  the  authority  apostolic  as  claimed 
by  their  so-called  "  successors,"  is  a  usurpation,  and  hence, 
HUMAN  !  Thus  much  for  the  testimony  of  Ambrose.  Take  now 
that  of  Theodoret:  "  The  same  persons  were  anciently  called  pro- 
miscuously both  bishops  diXidi presbytersj''  Let  us  admit  then,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  that  the  apostles  were  anciently  bishops.  Theo- 
doret says  :  "Those  who  are  now  called  bishops,  were"  (then) 
"  called  apostles."  This  change  of  title,  it  is  alleged,  transpirea 
"  shortly  after'''  the  apostles  were  "  dead."  Whether  the  interval, 
therefore,  were  six  mouths,  or  six  years,  or  six  centuries,  it  mat- 
ters not.  The  clear  inference  is,  that  the  now-bishops  were  not  the 
THEN-BISHOPS ;  modem  bishops  ake  not  the  same  as  ancient  bishops ; 
therefore,  they  are  not,  and  cannot  be,  bishops  by  Divine  eight.* 

As  an  incident  of  those  early  times,  I  now  remark,  the  change 
of  ecclesiastical  titles  above  alluded  to,  having  transpired  subse- 
quently to  the  introduction  of  the  superintendency  of  one  presbyter 
over  the  others  as  a  human  arrangement,  serves,  of  itself,  to  illus- 
trate the  nature  and  tendency  of  the  theory  which  originated  it. 
And  now,  the  work  of  aggression  having  been  thus  commenced 
by  these  early  innovators  upon  the  primitive  constitution  and 
ministry  of  the  Church,  the  precedent  of  an  Episcopacy  of  three 
orders,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  at  first  established,  as  we  have 
said,  on  the  principle  of  expediency  alone,  served  but  as  a  stepping 
stone  for  others  which  followed  in  rapid  succession  until,  under 
the  plea  of  a  "  prescriptive"  or  Divine  right,  there  were  finally 
added  to  the  above,  archbishops,  primates,  patriarchs,  metropolitans, 
popes,  cardinals,  archdeacons,  moriks,  friars,  nuns,  exorcists,  acolytes, 
etc.,  teaching  and  preaching  the  doctrine  of  priestly  ahsolution, 

*  For  a  more  elaborate  statement  of  this  argument,  see  Powell  on  Apostolical  Suc- 
cession, pp.  14-lG.     London,  1838. 


328 

auricular  confession,  purgatory,  transuhstantiation,  extreme  unction, 
a  system  of  C Jiristianized  derrtoriolatry  or  image-worship,  etc,  and  a 
belief  in,  and  obedience  to,  and  praetiee  of,  one  and  all,  enforced 
by  the  thunders  of  the  Vatican  in  the  infliction  of  penalties  by 
imprisonment,  confiscation,  banishment,  fire  and  fagot,  the  gibbet 
and  the  sword,  excommunication,  and,  iinall}'-,  eternal  damnation, 
against  all  the  disobedient,  whether  sovereigns  or  subjects,  rich  or 
poor,  learned  or  ignorant,  bond  or  free !  The  acme  of  this  fearful 
power  of  the  popeuom,  arrogating  to  itself  the  attributes  of  infalli- 
bility, and  universal  and  absolute  supremacy,  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral, and  beneath  which  emperors,  sovereigns,  kings  and  nobles 
trembled,  may  be  seen  in  the  decrees  of  the  canon  of  Boniface 
VIIL,  in  the  words  following  : 

"  Subesse  Romano  Pontifici,  omnis  humanai  creatiiras  declaramus, 
dicimus,  defininms,  et  j^ronunciamus  omuino  esse  necessitate 
salutis." 

"  Moreover,  we  declare,  and  say,  and  define,  and  pronounce  to 
every  human  creature,  that  it  is  altogether  necessary  to  salvation 
to  be  subject  to  the  Eoman  j^ontiftV* 

Sununarily,  then,  what  I  affirm  of  the  theory  of  Episcopacy,  as 
founded  on  the  j^rinciple  of  expediency^  is,  that  it  forms  the  leaven 
of  that  PRELATicAL  systcm  of  which  the  Papacy  is  the  lump.  With 
all  deference  to  the  sentiment  as  expressed  by  a  recent  learned 
anti-prclatical  controvertist,  I  submit  that  the  Church  of  Eome  is 
not  "  the  mother  of  Episcopacy."f  Nor  "  did  Episcopacy  spring 
from  Presbyterianism.":}:  "  The  mother  of  Episcopacy"  was  rather 
that  "  evil  spirit  which,  actuated  by  a  love  of  "  the  pke-kmlnence," 
and  of  which  "  Diotrephes"  is  the  New  Testament  type,' — sowed 
broad-cast  on  primitive  Presbyterian  ground  the  seed  of  its  prelatical 
rival,  which,  taking  root  downward,  "p,y  lpitle  and  lhtle,"  pro- 
duced at  length  that  miglity  Upas,  THE  PAPACY,  upon  whose 
wide-spread  branches  have  lodged  all  those  various  broods — "  the 
fowls  of  the  air" — of  the  great  antichristian  apostasy,  both  of  the 
past  and  the  present  age.  As  in  nature,  so  in  the  matters  under 
consideration.  Presbyterianism,  originally  sown  on  ajjostolie  grouna 
by  apjoslolic  hands,%  continued  to  flourish  like  "  wheat"  in  the 
midst  of  "  tares."  No  period  since  the  New  Testament  age  has 
elapsed,  when  they  ceased  to  "  grow  together."  And  they  will 
and  must  so  continue  to  "  grow  together  until  the  harvest"  of  the 
great  day. 

But  to  the  historic  fact,  as  stated  by  Jerome  and  the  writers  who 

(1)  3  John  V.  9. 

*  Roman  Catholic  Debate,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  p.  93.  1837.  For  a  truly  graphic 
portrait  of  the  Papacy,  by  an  able  and  eloquent  pen,  the  reader  is  referred  to  PartlJl. 
p.  177.  of  this  Treatise. 

t  The  Posiiion  of  the  Evangelical  Party  in  the  Episcopal  Church,  by  Albert  Barnes. 
Philadelphia,  1844.     p.  34. 

X  Remarks  on  the  above  from  the  Episcopal  Recorder.  R.  S.  George.  Philadelphia, 
1844,  p.  16. 

§  See  Part  II.  of  this  Treatise. 


329  • 

preceded  him,  that  in  the  first  age  after  tlie  apostles  "  tresbyters 
KULED  IN  COMMON,"  the  modem  advocates  of  prelacy  of  all  sects 
and  grades  object  that  "there  is  not  a  trace  of  it" — that  is,  of  min- 
isterial parity — "  to  be  found."     That  "  it  is  impossible"  that  "  such 
an   office   as   was   held  by  the  apostles,  and   afterwards  by  the 
bishops  their  successors,"  should  "  ever  arise  in  the  Church,  with- 
out it  had  been  fully  sanctioned  by  the  great  Head  of  the  Church." 
That   it   is   marvelously  "strange   that   it" — that   is,    miuisterial 
parity — "should  have  been  considered  so  unfitted  for  the  Church 
of  Christ,  as  to  be  banished  from  it  before  the  close  of  the  first 
century."     And,  finally,  it  is  contended  that  if  such  a  change  did 
occur,  "  this  immensely  important  mistake  must  have  spread  so 
rapidly  and  powerfully  as  to  have  revolutionized  the  government 
of  the  Church  of  all  lands,  in  the  course  of  some  sixty  years  after 
the  death  of  St.  John,  and  so  silentl}^  that  history  has  preserved 
not  the  slightest  trace  of  its  beginning  and  progress,  and  so  per- 
fectly and   universally,   that   though    the  Scriptures    were  daily 
read   in   the  Churches,  and  presbyters   and   laity   were   made  of 
the  same  materials  as  they  are  now,  none  perceived  the  usurpation  • 
but  all  took  it  for  granted,  without  a  question,  that  such  had  been 
the  government  of  the  Church  from  the  beginning,  and  was  to  be, 
to  the  end  of  the  world  ;  and  this  mistake,   so  permanent,   that 
Avithout  a  dream  of  its  being  else  than  the  most  unquestionable 
truth,  it  continued  till  the  sixteenth  century  entirely  unsuspect- 
ed,';*  etc. 

Now,  all  this  is  plausible,  very.     But,  let  it  be  conceded  that  the 
regimen  of  tlie  Church  was  changed  from  parity  to  prelacy — from  a 
system  of  parochial  to  that  of  diocesan  Episcopacy — before  the  close 
of  the  second  century.     Surely,  the  most  ample  scope,  as  to  tinie^  was 
afforded  for  precisely  such  a  revolution  as  is  here  contemplated. 
Its  silent  accomplishmeut  holds  an  exact  analogy  to  those  numerous 
instauces  in  civil,  political  and  ecclesiastical  affairs,    "  where  men 
have  yielded  their  rights  without  a  struggle."     All  histor\'  attests, 
that  such  revolutions  have  been  achieved  "  more  by'art  and  decep- 
tion, than  by  war,  and  bloodshed."     It  is  the  very  character  of 
such  "  encroachments,"   to  forge    in  silence  those   chains   which, 
when  imposed,  cannot  be  resisted.     The  histories  both  of  Imjierial 
and  of  Christianized  Rome,  may  be  taken  in  illustration.     Thus, 
in  the   instance  before  us :     It  was    not  by  commotion,    not  by 
fire  and  sword,  but  b}^  a  mere  change  of  ecclesiastical  titles,  adapted 
to  that  system,  for  the  establishment  of  which  the  way  had  been, 
for  the  space  of  nearly  a  century,  gradually  and  imperceptibl}'  pre- 
paring the  Church,  that  prelacy  first  attained  a  foothold  on  primi- 
tive soil.     And,  that  nothing  but  ignorance,  or  a  purposed  intention 
to  deceive,  could  have  betrayed  any  writer  into  the  declaration,  as 
aljovo,   ''^  tJcat  Jiistory  has  preserved  not  the  slightest  trace  of  the  begin- 
ning  and  progress^^  of  such  a  change,  we  shall  now  prove  fi'om  the 

*  The  Argument  for  llie  Apool.  Succ,  Bisliop  Mcllvaine,  p.  M. 


# 


830 


account  which  Jerome,  -vvhom  prelatists  claim  in  support  of  their 
theory,  gives  of  this  very  matter.     His  words  are  as  follows : — 

"  Presbyters  and  Bishops  were  formerly  the  same.  And  he- 
fore  the  Devil  incited  men  to  nnake  divisions  in  religion^  and  one 
was  led  to  say,  '  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,'  churches  were 
governed  by  the  common  council  of  the  Presbytery.  But 
AFTERWARDS,  when  every  one  in  baptizing  rather  made  pros- 
elj^tes  to  himself  than  to  Christ,  it  was  everywhere  decreed  that 
one  pei'son,  elected  from  the  rest  of  the  presbyters  of  each  church, 
should  be  placed  over  the  others,"  etc.  Again.  ''  But  that  the 
roots  of  dissention  might  be  plucked  up,  a  usage  gradually" 
(or  '■'■  silently^''''  '■'•'by  little  and  little^'')  took  place,  that  the  chief 
care  should  devolve  upon  one,"  etc. 

The  learned  Bingham,  a  standard  authority  with  Churchmen, 
tells  us,  "  St.  Jerome  will  be  allowed  to  S'pealc  the  sense  of  the 
ancients  y 

Again.  It  is  said,  the  early  fathers  speak  of  the  existence  of 
Diocesan  Episcopacy  in  their  day.  Granted.  But  this  does  not 
prove  that  it  existed  in  the  ajjostolic  age.  On  this  subject,  the 
learned  and  acute  Archbishop  Whately  says :  "  It  seems  plainly 
to  have  been  at  least  the  general,  if  not  the  universal  practice  of 
the  apostles  to  appoint  over  each  sejyarate  churchy  a  single  indi- 
vidual, as  a  chief  governor,  under  the  title  of  angel  or  '  bishop.' 
A  CHURCH  and  a  diocese  seem  to  have  been  for  a  considerable 
time"  [sixty  years  will  answer  our  purpose*)  '"'' co-extensive  and 
identicaiy\  Nor,  we  add,  does  the  mention  of  the  above  fact  by 
the  early  fathers,  prove  that  diocesan  episcopacy  was  by  divine 
right.  Jerome  savs, — "  Let  the  hishojjs  know,  that  they  are  above 
presbyters  more  BY  THE  CUSTOM  OF  THE  CHURCH,  than 
by  the  true  dispensation  of  Christ.":}: 

Once  more.  If,  as  is  asserted  above,  "Ja'sAo/^s"  could  not  have 
risen  "in  the  Church,"  unless  "fully  sanctioned"  by  Christ;  then, 
query  :  why  cannot  the  whole  troop  of  high  dignitaries  up  to  His 
Holiness  "the  Lord  God  the  Pope,"  "Vicar  General  of  Jesus 
Christ  on  earth"  "and  Minister  Plenipotentiary  of  Heaven,"  who 
subsequently  arose  "  in  the  Church,"  plead  a  similar  sanction? 

And  so,  linally,  of  the  pretense,  that  prelacy  was  "  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  from  the  heginning,  and  was  to  he,  to  the  end  of 
the  world,^^  etc. ;  and  that,  ^'without  a  dream  of  its  being  else  than  the 
most  unquestionable  truth,  it  continued  till  the  sixteenth  century  entirely 
unsuspected.''^  In  refutation  of  this  statement,  and  in  proof  of  the 
uninterrupted  existence  of  ministerial  parity  "  from  the  begin- 
ning" down  to  the  Reformation  in  the  "  sixteenth  century ;"  the 
reader  is  referred  to  tlie  numerous  quotations  from  the  early  fath- 
ers,  etc.  (see  Chapter   X.,    Sections   II.   and   III.,    etc.    etc.,   in- 

*  The  Ar!>;ument  for  the  Apostolic  Succession,  Bishop  McIIvaine,  p.  14,  Note. 
t  Whately's  Kiiitj;iloni  of  Christ. 
X  S.  Hieron,  in  Tit.  C.  I. 


331 

elusive,  of  tliis  Treatise.  And  I  now  remark,  that,  of  all  the  acts 
of  imposition  practiced  upon  the  "unlearned"  in  these  matters  in 
support  of  a  favorite  theory,  that  stands  first  and  foremost,  which 
assigns  to  the  system  of  ministerial  parity,  alias^  Pkesbyterian- 
iSM,  an  origin  subsequent  to  the  Anglican  Reformation.  So  far 
from  it,  we  refer  the  reader  to  the  historical  evidence  furnished  in 
this  Treatise,  (Chapter  X.  Section  IV.)  that  "  the  Reformed  Church 
of  England  as  by  law  established,"  though  adopting  the  episcopacy  1^1^ 

of  three  orders,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons,  nevertheless  placed  '■^~ 

it,  not  on  the  basis  of  prescriptive  or  divine  right ;  but,  throwing 
herself  back  upon  the  primitive  j9d5^apostolic  platform  of  the 
second  century,  adopted  it  on  the  ground  of  expediency  only, 
the  first  English  Reformers — Cranmer  and  his  coadjutors,  backed 
by  Royal  authority,  affirming,  and  that  in  the  most  positive  terms, 
that  hisJwps  and  presbyters  were,  by  divine  appointment,  ONE 
AND  THE  SAME  ORDER,  and  that  to  them  belongs,  EQUAL- 
LY, the  right  to  ordairt-  Nor  this  only.  This  theory  of  ministe- 
rial parity,  alias  Presbyteeianism,  continued  to  be  the  ruling 
principle  of  the  Anglican  Church  down  to  the  time  of  Archbishop 
Laud,  A.D.  1664.  During  this  interval — a  period  of  over  one 
hundred  years — "  all  the  eminent  Archbishops  of  Canterbury, 
with  but  two  exceptions" — (I  quote  from  a  recent  Episcojpal 
writer)  recognized  "  the  Church  character  of  7ion-Episco2)al  com- 
munions," and  have  sealed  that  recognition  with  the  fact,  "  that 
ministers  not  JFpiscojyally  ordained  held  livings  in  the  Church  of 
England  for  more  than  one  Tiundred  years  after  the  Reformation."* 
In  conclusion,  then,  on  this  subject  of  Episcopacy  as  adopted  on 
the  ground  of  expediency  alone,  though,  as  we  have  said,  having 
originated  in  the  early  age  of  the  Christian  Church,  it  formed  (at 
least  in  our  view)  the  first  stepping  stone  towards  the  erection  of 
that  stupendous  spiritual  hierarchy,  the  Papacy  /  and  though, 
since  the  time  of  Laud,  the  original  Loio  ChiircJi  platform  has 
been  displaced  by  the  unscriptural  substitution  therefor  of  prelacy 
by  divine  riglit ;  yet,  where  it  is,  or  may  be  adopted  or  retained 
on  the  same  principles  with  those  of  its  primitive  and  more 
modern  Anglican  forms ;  with  the  experience  of  its  past  abuses 
operating  as  a  beacon  to  guard  against  the  rocks  and  shoals  which 
lie  beneath  its  surface,  it  being  entirely  free  from  the  unchurching, 
denunciatory,  and  schismatical  consequences  of  the  opposite  theory, 
there  can  be  no  insuperable  objection  urged  against  its  continuance, 
A  Ttturn  to  these  original  principles,  on  the  part  of  the  Anglican 
and  American  Episcopal  Church,  I  affirm  to  be  the  only  effectual 
antidote  to  the  distracting  contentions  and  divisions  which  now 
disturb  her  peace.  At  least,  the  really  Low  Church  portion  in 
that  body,  now  that  we  have  removed  the  superincumbent  debris, 
with  which  prelatists  have  concealed  from  view  the  above  historic 

*"Triie  Churchmanship  Vindicated,"  etc.     By  Rev.  Mason  Gallagher,  Rector  of 
Trinity  Church,  Covington,  Ky.     1851. 


S32 

facts  for  the  last  two  hundred  j'ears,  are  forced  to  a  choice  between 
two  alternatives  :  either  to  adopt  the  above  theory  on  the  basis  of 
its  primitive  and  Anglican  reformed  principles,  as  their  stand- 
point against  the  Babel-tongned  theories  of  tlieir  Romish,  Tracta- 
rian,  Hobartian,  and  so-called  Low  Church  antagonists,  and  insist 
on  the  rfidoratlon.  to  the  Church  of  its  original  and  only  leeiti'>>''*^'' 
landmarks ;  or,  to  secede. 


SECTION  n. 

The   alleged  Anglican   Succession. — Aspect,  etc.,  of  England  at  the  time  of  Henry 

VIII. 
Review  of  Rev.  A.  B.  Chapin's  work  on  "  The  Organization  of  the  Primitive 

Church,"  etc. 
Proposes  to  trace  the  English  Succession  in  several  different  ways. — Remarks. 

Proceed  we  now  to  an  examination, 

II. — Of  THE  Anglican  line  of  Succession. 

We  have  already  taken  a  brief  survey  of  the  ecclesiastical  as- 
pect of  England,  on  the  accession  of  Henry  VIII.  to  the  British 
throne,  ajx  1509.  England,  now  under  the  dominion  of  the 
Papacy,  finds  in  her  monarch  a  zealous  advocate  of  Papal  suprem- 
acy, and  the  recipient  of  pontifical  honors.  Then,  growing  impa- 
tient under  the  restraints,  and  indignant  at  the  attempted  dictation 
and  control  of  a  foreign  spiritual  court  in  the  matter  of  his  divorce 
from  his  ailianced  queen,  the  proud  king  throws  oft"  the  Papal 
yoke,  and  himself  is  constituted  "  the  onl}'  supreme  head  of  the 
Chuich  in  England  and  Ireland,"  and  that,  as  we  have  seen  from 
the  statute,  in  things spiiitual  as  well  as  temporal.*  No.  Passion- 
ately fond  of  the  process  of  divorce  fi'om  his  wives,f  and  of  that 
of  his  kingdom  from  Papal  Rome,  as  was  this  capricious  monarch, 
it  seemed  never  to  have  entered  his  head,  that  'ihk  Ciiukcii  might 
have  been  immeasurably  benefited  by  its  divorce  from  the  State. 

But,  to  return  to  the  subject  of  our  present  remark : — the 
alleged  Anglican  "  unbroken  succession."  The  Rev.  Mr.  Chapin 
proposes  to  "give  the  English  succession  in  several  dijferent 
vxajsyX      A    labor,    this,   Ave   submit,    of  supererogation ;    one 

*  See  pp.  2.30,  232. 

t  Heiirv  Vlll.  had  six  wives — Katharine,  Anne  Boleyn.  Jane  Seymour,  Anne  of 
Clevi's.  Katharine  Howard,  and  Katharine  Parr.  He  was  divorced  from  three  of  Ihem^ 
Ka/finrim,  Anne  Boleyn,  and  jlnne  of  Cleves.  Two  were  beheaded — Anne  Boleyn,  and 
Katharine  Howard. 

}  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  29L     The  italirs  are  our  own. 


clearly  autlicnticated  "  wa}'-"  being  quite  sufficient  for  all  practical 
purposes.     Still,  where  this  author  leads,  we  must  follow.* 

It  will  be  well,  however,  in  the  first  place,  to  examine  a  little 
into  the  souree  of  infmmation  whence  our  author  derives  his  mate- 
rials for  his  work.  Having  attended  elsewhere  to  the  argument 
for  prelacy  as  alleged  to  be  founded  on  "  Holy  Scripture,"  we  shall 
pass  over  the  portion  of  Mr.  Chapin's  book  devoted  to  that  depart- 
ment, and  conline  ourselves  to  his  treatment  of  the  subject  on  the 
authority  of  "  ancient  avithors." 

What,  then,  is  Mr.  Chapin's  testimony  regarding  these  "  ancient 
authors,"  alias^  Tradition.  Speaking  of  them  in  the  matter  of  the 
light  reflected  on  the  subject  of  the  early  links  in  the  chain,  com- 
mencing, for  example,  with  the  "  succession  from  Ephesus,"  he 
sa3^s  :  "  We  are  not  able  to  .  consult  the  original  records,  being 
kept  in  a  difterent  portion  of  country,  and  these  at  present  are  im- 
perfect, many  of  the  earl}^  records  of  the  churches  having  been  de- 
stroyed when  the  south  of  Europe  was  overrun  by  the  northern 
barbarians.  Since  \hQ  fourth  century^  however,  we  are  able  to 
give  the  dates  of  the  several  successions,  and  enough  has  been 
preserved  to  give  us  the  exact  order  of  the  succession  up  to  the 
most  primitive  times.  We  copy  from  the  great  work  of  the  Bene- 
dictines,f  entitled  Gallia  Christiana,  in  eleven  folio  volumes,  and 
which  was  above  thirty -live  years  going  through  the  press.":{: 
Wonderful ! 

It  is  here,  however,  to  be  borne  in  mind,  that  these  Benedictine 
monks  were  the  stanch  advocates  qf  the  2)((2)(icy-  Between  the 
sixth  and  fourteenth  centuries,  the  order  embraced  24  popes,  200 
cardinals,  7,000  archbishops,  15,000  bishops,  15,000  abbots,  4,000 
saints,  and  37,000  monasteries,  .besides  many  emj:»erors,  empresses, 
kings,  queens,  princes,  princesses,  etc.§  They  are,  therefore,  to 
say  the  least,  an  interested  'part]!  in  this  matter.  Then,  too,  their 
"  eleven"  ponderous  folios,  considering  the  sources  whence  their  con- 
tents were  gleaned — the  "  imperfect"  fragments  which  escaped  the 
destructive  hands  of  the  northern  barbarians  of  earlier  times,  how 
idle  the  pretense,  that  "  enough  has  been  preserved  to  give  us  the 
exact  order  of  the  succession  up  to  the  most  primitive  tmies."  But 
this  is  not  all.  Mr.  Chapin  has  himself  furnished  us  with  the  ma- 
tcrid  out  of  Avhich  to  construct  a  canon  on  the  subject  of  tradi- 
tional testimony,  somewhat  to  the  following  effect :  "  The  state- 
ments of  '  ancient  authors'  become  valueless,  just  in  proportion  as 
they  recede^  in  point  of  time,  from  the  apostolic  age."     For  exam- 

*  We  speak  advisedly  when  we  say,  that  the  work  of  the  Rev.  A.  B.  Chapin  from 
which  we  here  quote,  is  received  as  of  standard  aulliority  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  this  country. 

t  The  celebrated  order  of  the  Benedictines,  the  most  ancient  annonp;  the  Latins,  was 
fornned  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  by  Benedict  Nursinus,  of  Unibria  in  Tlaly, 
who  was  first  a  soldier,  then  a  hermit,  and  finally  a  monk.  The  order  soon  covered  the 
whole  face  of  Europe.      (Spanheim's  Ecclesiastical  Hi.tlory,  p.  299.) 

t  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  '294. 

§  See  Spanheim"s  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  300. 


f 

384 

pie :  speaking  of  the  prelatical  theoi}',  he  claims  for  its  support 
**  the  whole  current  of  ancient  authorities,"  by  which  he  means  the 
apostolical  fathers,  and  affirms,  "  that  no  one  has  pretended  to  find 
a  single  opposing  authority,  until  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty 
years  after  the  death  of  St,  John,  a.d.  100 ;  that  is,  not  before  a.d. 
350  ;"*  and  he  then  refers  us  to  Jerome,  as  quoted  by  Presbyteri- 
ans against  prelacy,  and  says :  "  Such  a  person  cannot  be  au- 
thority." Pra 3^,  wherefore?  Answer:  '^  Because  he  did  not  live 
at  the  tiviey-\  But,  did  the  Benedictines,  from  whose  ^'■Gallia 
Christiana]''  he  compiles  his  "  Succession  from  Ephesus,"  "  live  at 
the  time"  of  the  commencement  of  that  chain  ?  If  Jerome's  testi- 
mony, A.D.  850,  "cannot  be  authority,"  how  comes  it  to  pass  that 
the  Benedictine  folios,  written  several  centuries  after  that  period, 
are  referred  to  as  authoritative  in  determining  "  the  exact  order  of 
the  succession  up  to  the  most  primitive  times ;"  or  are  we  to  under- 
stand, that  "  ancient  authors"  are  unauthoritative,  only  when 
quoted  in  support  of  Presbyterianism  ? 

Indeed,  considering  the  bulk  of  these  "  eleven  folios,"  compared 
w^ith  what  Mr.  Chapin  declares  to  have  been  the  "imperfect"  re- 
mains of  "  the  early  records  of  the  churches"  on  which  they  had  to 
depend  in  filling  them,  we  cannot  suppress  the  suspicion,  that  the 
spirit  of  an  earlier  age,  when,  according  to  Du  Pin,  in  order  to 
"  keep  up  the  piety  of  the  faithful,"  the  "  Catholics  were  carried  so 
far  as  to  invent  false  histories^''  etc.,  had  descended  upon  these 
Benedictine  monks.:]: 

In  conclusion  on  this  subject,  we  deny^  "  that  no  one  has  pre- 
tended to  find  a  single  opposing  authority"  to  prelacy,  until  "a.d. 
850."  As  we  shall  presently  show,  Mr.  Chapin  is  either  crimi- 
nally ignorant  of  the  earlier  "opposing  authority"  to  that  theory- 
adduced  by  Presbyterians,  and  which,  in  a  writer  of  his  pretensions, 
is  quite  unpardonable,  or  he  has  attempted  to  palm  upon  the  unin- 
formed reader  what  he  knows  to  be  untrue. 

Now  then,  for  the  "  several  different  ways"  in  which  Mr.  Chapin 
proposes  to  give  "  the  English  succession,"  preliminary  to  which, 
however,  we  must  "consider  two  points- connected  with  the  suc- 
cession of  bishops  in  the  English  Church,  which,"  this  writer  tells 
us,  "  are  often  confounded."  He  explains  himself  thus  :  "  If  we 
wish  to  trace  back  the  authority  of  the  present  bishops,  we  must 
go,  not  in  the  line  of  bishops  occupying  a  particular  See,  but  in  the 
line  of  their  consecrators  f  the  former,  he  calls  "the  succession 
of  Episcopal  governors  ;"  the  latter,  "  the  apostolical  succession," 
"  on  which,"  he  says,  "  all  Episcoijal  jpoiocr  dej^ends^  He  then  fur- 
nishes the  following  example  in  illustration  :  "All  the  colonies 
[American]  were  originally  attached  to  the  bishop  of  London,  and 
hence  each  of  the  dioceses  in  this  country,  where  there  was  an 
Episcopal  Church  before  the  Eevolution,  would  trace  the  succession 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  198.  t  lb.,  — . 

X  See  Part  I.,  p.  61. 


835 


of  Episcopal  governors  back  to  the  bisliops  of  London ;  but  the 
apostolic  succession  is  traced  back  through  the  archhishojps  of  Can- 
terhary^''''  etc.,  "  or  through  the  archbishops  of  Y&rk,'^*  as  they 
assisted  at  the  consecration  of  our  first  bishops,  "f 


SECTIOIT  m. 

The  subject  continued. — Mr.  Chapin's  sources  of  instruction. — Tradition. — His  testimony 
regarding  them. — Benedictine  monks,  etc. — The  "  Gallia  Christiana." — A  mistake 
of  Mr,  C  — His  singular  mode  of  tracing  the  apostolical  succession. — Alleges  the 
English  succession  to  come  from  Ephesus,  etc. — Claims  Augustine  as  the  first  Saxon 
Bishop,  and  the  first  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. — Design  of  this  theory,  to  avoid  its 
derivation  from  Rome. — Two  difficulties  for  Mr.  C. — First:  With  those  prelatists 
who  admit  said  succession  from  Rome. — Second :  With  himself. — (1.)  His  authorities 
in  support  of  his  new  line. — (2.)  His  error  regarding  Polycarp's  alleged  consecra- 
tion by  the  apostle  John. — Eusebius,  Gallia  Christiana,  Bade,  Barronius. — Their 
statements  irreconcilable  with  authentic  data. — Dr.  Cook,  Bishop  Pearson,  Bishop 
Purcell,  etc. — Tabular  view,  etc. 

With  these  instructions  as  our  polar  star,  we  are  then  told  that 
the  English  succession  is  to  be  traced,  not  through  Itome,  but  jfrom 
the  See  of  Ajjhesus,  founded  by  St.  John,  through  ^'■Augustine,  the 
first  Saxon  hishop^  as  well  as  the  fikst  Aechbishop  of  Canter- 
bury," he  having  been  consecrated,  "  very  providentially,"  at 
Aries,  "  by  VirgiUus,  24th  bishop  of  Avles^  assisted  by  (Etherius, 
31st  bishop  of  Ljons,  a.d.  596.":}:  The  reader  will  please  put  his 
thumb  on  these  stand-points  of  Mr.  C.'s  theory. 

Consecrated,  '•'■  very  iirovidentially ^^  at  ^Arles^''  etc.  Wherefore? 
Answer:  Because  "the  ancients  themselves  traced  back"  their 
{"i  "episcopate  and  ecclesiastical  rites"  of  "  the  Grallic  churches,"  "  to 
■W^  St.  John  ;"§  hence,  the  English  Church,  deriving  her  succession 
from  St.  John,  instead  of  St.  Peter,  through  the  pious,  humane,  and 
zealous  Augustine,  as  the  first  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  if  true^ 
escapes,  on  the  one  hand,  the  guilt  of  schism  imputed  to  her  by 
her  Komish  and  Presbyterian  opponents,  on  the  ground,  as  Mr.  C. 
afiirms,  that  she  lias  "ever  been  legally  and  cationically  independ- 
ent of '11  that  Church;  and,  on  the  other,  the  opprobrium  of  having 
.  derived  her  Episcopacy  through  that  corrup)t  channel.  Indeed,  the 
construction  of  Mr.  C.'s  argument  throughout  his  whole  book  of 
408  duodecimo  pages,  hinges  on  the  deeply  seated  conviction,  that 
tlie  salvation  of  Protestant  prelacy  depends  on  his  sustaining 

♦  The  rustom  was,  for  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  consecrate  those  of  York,  ex- 
cept when  overruled  by  tlie popes. —  ( Viile  Howell's  Pontif.,  p.  2S8;  etc.,  and  Bishop  Godwin, 
p.  C68.) 

t  The  Primitive  Church,  pp.  285,  286. 

X  lb.,  pp.  291,  292. 

§  lb.,  p.  292. 

II  lb.,  p.  359. 


336 

these  two  points ;  a  failure  liere,  and  there  remains  no  redemption 
for  her ;  she  must  otherwise  remain  forever  indelibly  branded  as  a 
schismatical  and  semi-papal  Church, 

But,  in  order  to  do  this,  there  are,  we  respectfully  submit,  a 
nuDiher  of  difficulties  in  ilie  ivay^  which  it  will  be  incumbent  on 
Mr.  C.  to  remove.     There  is  the  difficulty, 

1.  With  those  advocates  of  prelacy,  who,  admitting  the  deriva- 
tion of  the  English  succession  through  the  liomish  line,  contend, 
against  their  Presbyterian  opponents,  that  no  amount  of  moral  de- 
linquency can  invahdate  the  links  or  break  the  chain.*  Then, 
there  are  several  difficulties, 

2.  With  Mr.  C.  himself 

(1.)  The  first  relates  to  tlie  authorities  on  which  he  relies  for  the 
support  of  his  new  line.  He  admits  that  the  evidence  relied  upon 
to  iJrovethat  the  Gallic  Churches  "derived  their  Episcopate,"  etc., 
from  "St,  John,"  "  has  been  somewhat  disputed,"-}-  whether  "  with- 
out an}^  sufficient  reason,"  as  he  affirms,  we  leave  the  reader  to 
decide,  when  he  shall  have  compared  Mr.  C.'s  canon  on  the  subject 
of  "  ancient  authors,"  with  the  dates  of  his  authoi'ities,  viz.,  the 
Benedictine  Gallia  Christiana,:]:  Spel.  Concil.,§  Bede,  etc.  And, 
mark :  The  question  at  issue  regards,  not  the  genuineness  of 
these  several  productions,  but  the  authenticity  of  the  alleged  facts 
therein  set  forth.  Is  it,  we  demand,  sufficiently  authenticated  by 
these  writers,  that  the  apostle  John  founded  the  See  of  Ephesus, 
and  established  a  succession  of  bishops,  of  which  he  was  the  first 
link,  through  the  bishopric  of  Aries,  in  twenty-four  successive 
links,  from  Trophimus  to  Virgilius,  the  consecrator  of  Angustin  ? 
Look  at  his  own  list  of  that  succession.  It  makes  the  third  in  the 
line,  viz.,  Martin  I.,  to  have  been  consecrated  A.  D.  254,  leaving 
but  two  intervening  links  to  fill  up  a  gap  of  154  years,  from  the 
death  of  that  apostle !  Then,  again :  How  is  it  that  Aries,  "  the 
whole  province"  of  which  was  at  first  "  reckoned  as  the  arch- 
dioccss  of  Lyons,  a  name  it  still  retains,"  though  at  a  later  period 
it  was  reckoned  as  belonging  to  that  of  "  Venice  ;"  and,  "  from 
the  time  of  the  Emperor  Honorius,"  a.  d.  424,  it  "  had  been 
ranked  as  the  metropolitan  city  of  Gall,"  and  ^^■hich,  as  Mr.  C, 
informs  us,  was  "  the  reason  Avhy  Augustine  was  consecrated  at 
Aries  ;"||  how  is  it,  we  repeat,  from  tliis  showing,  that  its  succes- 
sion of  bishops,  in  point  of  historical  completeness,  falls  so  far 
below  that  of  the  See  of  Lyons  ?  Here  the  line,  commencing 
with  "  St,  John,"  is  continued  regularly  through  Polycarp^  Po- 
thinus,  etc.,  down  to  -^^Itherius,  who,  a.  d,  596,  assisted  Virgilius 
the  Bishop  of  Aries  in  consecrating  Augustine.*!]     Nor  is  this  all. 

(2.)  Mr.  C.  starts  this  line  with  the  positi^•e  affirmation,  that 

*  See  pp.  218,  210.     With  which  compare  pp.  102-105. 

t  The  I'rimitive  Church,  p.  292. 

X  See  pp.  3.'i.'i.  :VM.         §  OIJ  manuscript  of  Sir  H.  Spelman  {Concilia). 

II  The  Primitive  Church,  pp.  291,  292. 

i  lb.,  pp.  294,  290. 


837 

"  Polycarp  himself"  was  "  ordained  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  hy  St. 
John.*  Now  here,  we  again  repeat,  is  something  tangible,  if  true. 
We  ask,  then :  Is  Mr.  C.  borne  out  in  this  affirmation  by  Euser 
bins  ?  That  writer  distinctly  tells  us,  that  "  Polycarp  received 
his  Episcopate  of  the  Church  at  Smyrna,  at  the  hands  of  the  eye- 
witnesses and  servants  of  the  Lord."f  Now,  supposing  that  Euse- 
bius  here  refers  to  some  three  or  more  of  "the  twelve," — and  we 
admit  that  he  docs, — what  right  has  Mr.  C,  on  the  authority  of 
the  "  eleven"  huge  folios  of  the  Benedictine  Monks,  or  Bede,  or 
any  other,  to  substitute  in  their  place  as  the  consecrators  of  Poly- 
carp, the  single  name  of  St.  John"  ?  Nor  will  it  avail  that  Bar- 
ronius,  following  the  same  authorities,  affirms  the  consecration  of 
Polycarp  by  St.  John,  A.  d.  82.:}:  Indeed,  and  in  conclusion  on 
this  subject,  we  re-affirm§  that  these  authorities,  one  and  all,  are 
totally  irreconcilable  with  admitted  authentic  historical  data  in 
these  premises,  Polycarp,  at  the  time  of  his  death,  was  above  one 
hundred  years  old."||  Dr.  Cook,  M.D.,  the  most  distinguished  lay 
advocate  of  prelacy  of  modern  times,  speaking  of  the  date  of 
Polycarp's  martyrdom,  though  he  quotes  Bishop  Pearson  as  plac- 
ing it  A.  D.  148,  says  that  he  stands  alone  in  that  opinion,  and  that 
"  many  learned  men  place  it  in  167,  or  thereabouts,"^  Others 
place  it  at  a.d.  169  and  175,  We  shall  adopt  a.d.  167  as  the 
rehable  date.**  Now,  the  Eomi^h  Bishop  Purcell  places  the  date 
of  Polycarp's  conversion  at  A.  D.  80.  This  gives  between  his  con- 
version and  death  87  years.  Then,  supposing  that  the  "  eighty- 
six  (86)  years,  during  which,  according  to  Eusebius,  Polycarp 
declared  to  the  Proconsular  of  Asia  he  had  served  Christ,f  f  to  be 
understood  as  the  length  of  hi-S  bishopric  at  Smyrna  (but  which  no 
one  pretends),  he  must  have  been  consecrated  A.  D.  81,  But  it  is 
generally  conceded  that  he  was  bishop  of  that  See  only  fifty  (50) 
years,  which  willi^lace  his  consecration  at  a.d,  117. 

We  will  now  give  the  dates  of  the  deaths  of  "  the  twelve  apos- 
tles," adopting  Echard  as  the  standard. :}::{:  Of  Lehheus  no  account  is 
given.  Iscariot  is  excluded.  Of  the  remaining  eleven,  including 
Paul,  Echard  gives, 

*  The  Prim.  Church,  p.  292. 

t  Eusebiiis's  Ecclesiastical  History,  B.  III.,  c.  36,  p.  120. 

X  Spanheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  192. 

\  See  p.  290-292. 

I!  Spanheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  p.  192. 

«r  Cook  on  the  Inval.  of  Presb.  Ord.,  Works  on  Episc,  Vol.  II.,  p.  2-56,  sec.  127.   1831. 

**  Cook,  as  above.     Lardner  (Lit.  Hist.  New  Testament.     London,  pp.  533.)     Rid- 
dle's Eccles.  Chron.  London,  p  25.     Vater's  "  Syn.  Chronistischen  Tafeln."     Cent.  II. 

tt  Eusebius's  Ecclesiastical  Histor}',  B.  IV.,  c.  15,  p.  146. 

XX  "A  General  Ecclesiastical  History,  etc.,  from   the  Nativity  to  Constantine  the 
Great.     By  Lawrence  Echard,  A.M.,  Archdeacon  of  Stowe.     London,  1729." 
22 


338 

Nanus.  Mtdm.  etc.  Names.  Mtdm.  etc. 

A.D.  A.D. 

1.  James,  son  of  Zebedee,  44         6.  Peter, 68 

2.  Philip, 52          7.  Paul, 68 

3.  Matthew,     -     -     -     -     60  8.  Bartholomew,     -     -  72 

4.  James,  son  of  Alpheus,  62  9.  Thomas,    -     -     -     -  73 

5.  Andrew,      -     -     -     -     64  10.  Simon,      -     -     -     -  74 

11.  John,   -    -    -    -    100 

AlloAving,  therefore,  that  Polycarp's  consecration  took  place 
A.D.  81,  it  could  not  have  been  at  the  hands  of  the  first  ten  of  the 
above  named  apostles,  for  they  were  all  in  their  graves  seven  years 
before  that  event !  and  if,  as  is  generally  conceded,  he  was  but  fifty 
years  bishop  of  Smyrna,  he  could  not  have  been  consecrated  by 
"  St.  John,"  he  having  died  seventeen  years  before ! 

So  much  for  the  boasted  "succession  from  Ephesus,"  so  far  as 
it  relates  to  the  Knks  of  the  line  between  "  St.  John"  and  "Augus- 
tine." 


SECTION   IV. 

The  subject  continued. — The  English  succession  from  Augustine  to  the  present  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury. — Cardinal  Pole. — The  English  succession  from  Paul. — 
Bishop  McCoskrey. — His  authorities,  etc. — Bishop  Stillingfleet,  Rev.  H.  Carey, 
Mr.  E.  Churton,  etc. — A  bird's-eye  view  of  the  relation  of  old  Britain  to  Rome, 
about  A.D.  595. — Favorable  to  the  establishment  of  a  universal  spiritual  empire. — 
Gregory  I. — John,  Bishop  of  Constantinople  — Augustine's  mission  to  Kent,  Eng- 
land.— Romish. — His  authority  over  the  Anglican  Bishops. — Proof,  that  England 
was  not  independent  of  Rome  at  this  time. — Dilemma  of  Mr.  C. — Double  dilemma 
of  Bishop  McCoskrey  and  Mr.  C.  regarding  the  old  British  and  the  Anglo-English 
bishops. 

Let  us,  in  the  next  place,  examine  this  line  from  Augustine 
downward. 

Augustine,  then,  according  to  Mr.  Chapin,  having  received  his 
consecration  at  '  Aries,"  by  the  purer  hands  of  Virgilius,  bishop  of 
Aries,  and  ^therius,  bishop  of  Lyons,  as  "  the  first  Saxon  bishop," 
and  "the  first  archbishop  of  Canterbury,"  forms  the  eonnectiTig 
link  between  ^^  St.  Jolin^''  and  the  fresent  incumbent  of  that  See; 
and,  in  proof  of  the  alleged  uncorrupt  and  uninterrupted  continu- 
ance of  that  Canterberian  succession  from  Augustine,  as  entirely 
independent  of  the  Romish  line,  referring  to  his  list,  he  says  :  "  It 
will  be  seen  from  this  list,  that  we  do  not  trace  our  succession 
through  Cranmer's  successor.  Cardinal  PoUy*  The  succession  of 
Canterbury  continued  unbroken,  with  one  of  the  links,  because 

♦  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  004. 


339 

added  bj  Homish  liands,  thrown  out.     But,  was  tliis  the  onl/y 
addition  thereto,  made  by  the  same  hands  ?     We  shall  see. 

But  we  must  premise,  in  the  first  place,  that  Mr.  Chapin,  as  an 
advocate  of  Protestant  prelacy,  is  not  alone  in  his  eagerness  to 
trace  the  Anglican  succession  through  another  than  that  of  "  the 
corrupt  and  vitiated  channel  of  the  Romish  Church."  Thus, 
Bishop  McCoskrey,  speaking  of  the  earh^  introduction  of  the  Gos- 
pel into  "  Great  Britain,"  says,  "  the  first  records  of  the  Church 
established  there,  show  that  it  was  organized,  as  all  the  churches 
were,  by  the  apostle,  [Paul,]  and  in  three  orders,  with  the  bishop 
as  supreme  ;  that  the  succession  was  carried  there  by  St.  Paul,  and 
continued  uninten'upted  in  the  Church." 

"  The  first  records  of  the  Church."  Bishop  Stillingfleet,  speaking 
of  these  "  records,"  says,  "  that  by  the  loss  of  records  of  the  Bri- 
tish churches,  we  cannot  draw  down  the  succession  of  bishops  from 
the  apostles's  times."*  The  Rev.  Henry  Carey  says,  "  We  have  no 
mention  of  bishops  in  the  British  Church,  nor  do  we  find  any  fur- 
ther information  on  the  subject  at  all,  until  the  year  814  ;"f  and 
even  the  latest  historian  on  this  subject,  Mr.  E.  Churton,  and  highly 
lauded  by  Bishop  Ives  of  North  Carolina,  does  not  adventure  further 
than  to  say,  it  is  a  mere  supposition,  that  either  Paul  "  was  himself 
in  Britain,  or  that  he  sent  some  of  the  companions  of  his  travels  to 
make  known  on  these  shores  the  name  of  Christ,"  and  adds,  that 
"  the  woes  and  persecutions  which  followed  the  first  preaching  of 
the  Gospel  in  Britain,  have  destroyed  all  certain  records  of  Chris- 
tianity in  these  early  times.":}:  It  is  not  surprising,  therefore,  that 
"  the  first  introduction  of  the  Gospel  to  Britain  has  been  attributed 
to  James,  the  son  of  Zebedee,  to  Simon  Zelotes,  to  Peter,  to  Joseph 
of  Arimathea,  as  well  as  to  Paul." 

A  bird's-eye  view  of  the  political  and  ecclesiastical  affairs  of 
ancient  Britain  in  her  relations  to  old  Rome,  is  indispensable  to  a 
proper  understanding  of  the  subject  in  hand.  The  Roman  empire, 
having  Rome  in  Italy  as  its  metropolis,  was  founded  B.C.  758. 
Prophecy  had  marked  it  out  as  a  Gentile  power  which  was  to  attain 
to  universal  dominion,  and  which  should  rule  the  nations  ^^■ith  a 
rod  of  iron.'  At  the  time  of  the  Nativity,  it  had  grasped  the  rich- 
est portions  of  the  earth,  extending  in  length  three  thousand,  and 
in  breadth  two  thousand  miles;  and  in  the  time  of  Augustus 
Caesar,  was  denominated  "  the  v)hole  worldJ^^  The  Jews  were  at 
this  time  tributary  to  that  power,  and  in  a.d.  70,  found  themselves, 
as'  was  predicted  of  them,  without  either  "place"  or  "nation."^ 

Britain  formed  the  fiirthest  western  province  known  to  the  Ro- 
mans, but  no  circumstances,  either  of  distance  or  peril,  could  save 
that  province  from  her  rapacious  grasp.     And  though,  B.C.  55, 

(1)  Dan.  7  :  7,  19.     (-2)  Luke  -J.  :  1      (3)  Comjiare  Luke  2  :  1  with  John  11  :  4et. 

*  Origines  Brit.,  pp.  81-83. 

t  The  Apostolical  Succeesion  of  the  Church  of  England,  p.  S. 

j  The  Early  English  Church,  pp.  17,  19. 


840 

Caesar,  having  subdued  France,  met  witli  severe  repulses  from  the 
valorous  Britains,  yet,  subsequently  to  a.T),  43,  the  Eoman  army, 
after  nine  years  resistance  under  Caractacus,  subdued  them  to  the 
Eoman  yoke  ;  nor  did  the  valor  of  their  heroine.  Queen  Boadicea, 
A.D.  61,  together  with  the  forty  years  war  which  ensued,  succeed  in 
the  expulsion  of  tlie  invaders  from  the  island. 

Imperial  Rome,  however,"  now  the  mistress  of  the  v. sttions  jJoUii- 
GalJy,  was  destined  to  conflict  with  a  foe  clothed  with  a  power 
other  than  that  of  Briton  arms.  The  religion  of  the  cross,  during 
the  first  three  centuries,  had  become  co-extensive  with  tlic  Roman 
dominions.  When  this  latter  power,  therefore,  with  its  paganism 
incorporated  with,  and  inseparable  from,  its  national  and  political 
institutions,  was  brought  into  antagonism  with  CHKisTiANiTy  to- 
wards the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  Rome  "  saw  her  glories 
star  by  star  expire,"  and  the  year  a.d.  410,  found  Britain  disen- 
thralled from  her  iron  yoke. 

But,  we  have  now  to  turn  over  the  other  side  of  this  historic 
page.  "  While  Rome  saw  her  Emperor  gradually  falling  from  his 
throne,  she  saw  her  Bishop  clothing  himself  in  purple  and  scarlet, 
and  (gradually)  ascending  the  steps  of  the  same  throne,"  Let  us 
look  into  this  matter  a  little  in  detail. 

It  is,  then,  conceded  that  Christianity  was  introduced  into  the 
island  of  Great  Britain  at  a  very  early  period.  We  are  willing  to 
admit  the  testimony  of  Tertullian  of  the  second  century,  that  "  all 
nations  have  believed,  ....  and  those  places  of  the  British  isles, 
which  were  unapproachable  to  the  Romans,  are  altogether  subject 
to  Christ."*  Also  that  of  Bede,  who,  in  speaking  of  the  tenth 
persecution  under  the  bloody  Diocletian  early  in  the  fourth  century, 
says:  "  At  length  it  reached  Britain  also,  and  many  persons,  with 
the  constancy  of  martyrs,  died,  in  the  confession  of  their  fiaith."f 
More  :  We  will  even  admit  as  authentic  the  testimony  of  Gildas, 
the  earliest  British  Christian  whose  works  are  preserved,  that 
"  the  Sun  of  righteousness  shone  out  upon  this  frozen  isle  a  little 
before  the  defeat  of  Boadicea  by  the  Roman  legions,"  a.d.  6I4 
Still,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  British  bishops,  who,  it  is 
affirmed,  were  present  at  the  Council  of  Aries,  a.d.  815,  were 
prelatical  bishops,  continued  in  an  uninterrupted  line  of  succession 
from  (St.  Paul  or  ?)  St.  John.  Indeed,  if  we  may  rely  upon 
Churton's  testimony  regarding  this  period,  it  is  more  than  doubt- 
ful whether  any  Christian  churches  could  be  found  in  England  at 
this  time.  Speaking  of  the  period  between  a.d.  303  and  314,  he 
says :  "In  the  time  of  Diocletian,  it  pleased  the  Almighty  to  per- 
mit the  cause  of  truth,  for  the  space  of  ten  years  (a.  d.  303,  up  to 
314),  to  undergo  the  most  severe  trial  which  the  world  had  ever 

*  Adv.  Jud.,  c.  7. 
t  Bede,  B.  I.,  c.  6. 

X  Gildas  de  Excid.  Gent.  Brittania,  p.  9.  Ed.  Joss.  Evan's  Prim.  Ages.  Gildas 
wrote  about  a.  d.  560. 


341 

known.  Gildas,  the  earliest  British  historian,  tells  us  that  at  this 
time  the  Christian  churches  throughout  the  world  were  leveled 
with  the  ground  ;  all  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures  which  could  any 
where  be  found  were  burnt  in  the  public  streets,  and  the  priests 
and  bishops  of  the  Lord's  house  were  slaicghtered,  together  with 
their  charge ;  so  that  in  some  provinces  not  even  a  trace  of  Chris- 
tianity remained."* 

But,  even  admitting  that  the  above  persecution  did  not  take 
effect  in  the  province  of  Britain  as  elsewhere ;  or,  that  the  expa- 
triated bishops  subsequently  returned,  yet  its  inhabitants  had 
breathed  but  a  short  time  in  freedom  and  independence,  after  the 
expulsion  of  the  Komans.  For  although  the  Eomans,  up  to  A.  d. 
426,  sent  troops  into  Britain  and  assisted  the  natives  "  to  build  again 
the  wall  of  the  Emp.  Severus,  which  extended  from  the  mouth  of 
the  Tyne  to  that  of  the  Esk,  beyond  Newcastle  and  Carlisle,  as  a 
protection  against  the  Picts  and  Scots  ;"  yet,  the  Saxons,  a.  d.  449, 
made  a  descent  upon,  and  violently  seized  on,  the  eastern  parts  of 
the  island,  and,  pushing  on  in  savage  war,  they  drove  great  num- 
bers of  the  Britons  luestward,  even  into  Wales,  where  their  posterity 
and  language  are  preserved  even  to  the  present  day.  Speaking  of 
Britain  in  reference  to  these  calamitous  times,  Mr.  Churton  says : 
"  It  is  impossible  to  find  anything  more  disastrous  than  the  state  of 
Britain  at  this  time.  A  famine  had  followed  the  ravages  of  the 
Picts  and  Scots ;  then  arose  a  bloody  war  among  the  native  chiefs, 
and  the  Roman  Britons ;  those  who  had  lived  with  the  Romans  in 
their  cities,  and  learnt  their  language,  were  cut  oif  almost  to  a 
man."  .  .  .  .  "  From  this  time,"  he  continues,  "  Christianity  be- 
gan to  disappear  from  the  most  important  and  fruitful  provinces  of 
Britain.  As  the  Saxons  founded,  one  after  another,  their  petty 
kingdoms,  they  destroyed  the  churches,  and  the  priests  fied  before 
them^-f 

Now,  some  of  these  refugees  found  their  way  to  France,  and 
settled  in  that  part  "called  Brittany  or  Bretagne  (alias,  Aeles), 
from  whom  it  received  its  name."  While,  on  the  other  hand, 
Britain  was  occupied  by  two  peoples  totally  distinct  in  language, 
in  religion,  and  in  laws,  viz.,  the  old  Britons,  who,  with  their 
flocks,  had  fled  to  Wales,  and  the  Saxon  invaders  of  their  once 
peaceful  homes.  A  long  interval  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  years 
of  heathen  darkness,  together  with  the  most  rancorous  hatred  and 
deadly  wars,  ensue,  till  a.  D.  596,  when  Pope  Gregory  the  Gh-eut  sent 
Augustine,  with  other  mmihs,  to  convert  the  SAXONS  to  CJtristianity. 

The  circumstances  connected  with  the  origin  of  Augustine's 
mission,  the  source  of  that  mission,  its  object,  the  sphere  of  its 
operations,  its  character  and  its  results,  each  require  a  passing 
remark. 

And  first :     Of  Gregory  the  Great.     Of  the  period  of  which  we 

*  Churton's  Early  English  Church,  p.  20. 
t  The  Early  English  Church,  p.  32. 


342 

now  speak,  the  once  mighty  empire  of  Eome  was  a  mere  wreck, 
forlorn  and  powerless.  And  yet,  marvelous  as  it  may  seem,  at 
this  very  time,  the  mind  of  Gregory  conceived  the  gigantic  pro- 
ject of  making  liome  the  center  of  an  universal  spiritual  kingdom. 
It  was  the  oilspring  of  that  ambition  which  often  survives  the 
wreck  of  fortune.  The  political  state  of  the  world,  and  the  aspi- 
rations of  ecclesiastics  after  "  the  pre-eminence,"  were  maturing 
the  way  for  the  extension  and  establishment  of  the  office  of  "  uni- 
versal bishop."  That  title  was  now  actually  assumed  by  Gregory's 
cotemporary  and  rival,  John,  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
whose  "  strange  daring  and  arrogance"  that  pope  denounced  as  in- 
dicating "  that  the  times  of  Antichrist  were  at  hand."*  And  yet, 
the  Roman  Breviary  tells  us  that  Gregory  "  crushed  the  audacity  of 
John"  !f  Gibbon  says  of  him,  that  "  his  virtues,  and  even  his 
faults,  a  singular  mixture  of  simplicity  and  cunning,  of  pride  and 
humility,  of  sense  and  superstition,  were  happily  suited  to  his 
station,  and  the  temper  of  the  times.  In  his  rival,  the  patriarch 
of  Constantinople,  he  contemned  the  antichristian  title  of  univer- 
sal BISHOP,  which  the  successor  of  St.  Peter  was  too  haughty  to 
concede,  and  too  feeble  to  assume.":}: 

The  idea  of  the  conversion  of  the  Saxons  was  conceived  by 
Gregory  before  his  election  to  the  popedom.  Bede§  informs  us, 
that  being  one  day  at  Rome  in  the  market-place,  among  other 
articles  of  merchandise  exposed  to  sale  were  "  some  boys,  their 
bodies  white,  their  countenances  beautiful,  and  their  hair  very 
fine."  Having  asked  what  was  their  country  and  their  religion, 
he  was  told  that  they  were  "  Pagans,"  "  from  the  island  of 
Britain^  .  .  .  "He  therefore  asked  again,  what  was  the  name 
of  the  nation  ?"  And  it  was  answered  that  they  were  called 
Angles.  "Right,"  said  he,  "for  they  have  an  angelic  face, 
and  it  becomes  such  to  be  co-heirs  with  the,  angels  in  heaven." 
"  What  is  the  name,"  proceeded  he,  "  of  the  province  from  which 
they  are  brought  ?"  It  was  replied,  that  the  natives  of  that  pro- 
vince were  called  Deira.  "  Truly  are  they  De  ird^''  said  he, 
"  withdrawn  from  wrath  and  called  to  the  mercy  of  Christ.  How 
is  the  king  of  that  province  called  ?"  They  told  him  his  name  was 
yElla;  and  he,  alluding  to  the  name,  said,  "aZ/e%"a/i,  the  j^raise  of 
God  the  Creator  must  be  sung  in  those  parts."|| 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was,  that  Gregory  I.,  the  64th 
Pope^[  in  the  alleged  line  of  succession  from  Peter,  a.d.  596,  '  sent 

*  Bede's  Epist  Lib.  IV.  :  78. 

t  Die  XII.  Martii.     In  festo  Sancti  Gregorii. 

\  Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall. 

\  Called  ''  the  venerable  Bede  ;"  he  was  a  monk,  and,  though  a  native  historian  of 
the  eighth  century,  yet  he  paid  unreserved  obedience  to  the  Pope  of  Rome ;  and  so 
highly  are  his  works  esteemed  by  the  Romish  Church,  that  they  are  referred  to  as 
evidence  in  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  quoted  for  edification  in  the 
Romish  Breviary. 

II  Bede,  Book  II.,  c.  1. 

H  See  the  Catalogue  of  the  Popes. 


343 

AUGUSTINE,  with  otlier  monks,  to  preach  to  the  English,'  or 
Saxons,  the  Pope  having  appointed  that  Augustine  should  '  be  con- 
secrated bishop,  in  case  they  were  received  by  the  English.'*  The 
whole  company,  at  first  intimidated  by  fear  of  the  fierce  and  bar- 
barous character  of  the  Saxons,  and  from  their  ignorance  of  their 
language,  returned  home.f  But  '  Augustine,  being  strengthened 
by  the  confirmation  of  the  blessed  Father  Gregory,  returned  to  the 
work  of  the  word  of  God,  with  the  servants  of  Christ,'  i.e.,  the 
monks,  about  forty  in  number,  'and  arrived  in  Britain.'  They 
landed  on  '  the  large  island  of  Thanet  on  the  east  of  Kent,'  of 
which  '  Ethelbert  was  at  that  time  the  most  powerful  king.' 
Through  '  interpreters  of  the  nation  of  the  Franks,'  furnished  'by 
the  order  of  the  blessed  Pope  Gregory,':}:  they  were  admitted  to 
hold  audience  with  the  king,  who,  though  at  first  influenced  by  a 
superstitious  fear  of  an  exposure  to  '  magical  arts,'  yet,  'bearing  a 
silver  cross  for  a  banner,  and  the  image  of  our  Lord  and  Savior 
painted  on  a  board, '§  '  Augustine,'  says  Bede,  '  by  God's  assist- 
ance, suppof'ted  with  miracles,''  (though  not  possessed  of  "the 
signs  of  an  apostle,"  the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues,)  '  reduced 
King  Ethelbert  and  his  nation  from  the  worship  of  idols  to  the 
faith  of  Christ.'!  Bede  then  informs  us,  that  the  king  'permitted 
them  to  reside  in  Cantekbuby,  which  was  the  metropolis  of 
all  his  dominions.'^  And  from  thence,  Bede  tells  us,  Augustine 
sent  Laurentius  the  priest,  and  Peter  the  monk,  to  Pome,  to  ac- 
quaint Pope  Gregory  that  the  nation  of  the  English'  (the  Saxons) 
'  had  received  the  faith  of  Christ,  and  that  he  was  himself  made 
their  bishop.' 

*  Bede,  B.  I.,  c.  23.  t  lb.  J  lb.,  c.  24.  §  lb. 

I)  lb.,  Book  II.,  c.  3.  1  lb. 


344 


SECTIOIir   V. 

Proof  j)ositive,  that,  in  the  time  of  Augustine,  and  fon  nearly  one  hundred  years  after, 

no  ecclesiastical  connection  existed  between  the  fornner  and  the  Litter  bishops. — Mr. 

E.  Churton,  Bede,  etc. — 
This,  the  most  important  point  of  the  Historico-Prelatical  Controversy. — Involves  the 

necessity  to  show, 
I. — How  the  succession  through  Canterbury  is  derived  from  the  "  Old  British  Church." 

— Mr.  C.  here  compared  with  himself — "The  Culdees." — Mr.  E.  Churton. — Bede. 

— Aidan. — His  ordination  Presbyterial. — Inference  fatal  to  Mr.  C's  theory.— 
II- — Must  demonstrate  the  total  exemption  of  the  English  Church  from  all  subjection  to, 

or  connection  with,  the  See  of  Rome. — ''  The  Old  British  Bishops"  subdued  to  the 

obedience  of  Rome,  a.d.  668. — Persecution  of. — Bede  charges  it  on  Augustine. — 

Lauded  by  Mr.  E.  Churton. 

Thus,  then,  as  we  have  seen,  Augustine's  mission  originated 
with,  and  was  appointed  by,  Pope  Gregory  I.  That  its  object  was, 
the  conversion  of  the  pagan  Saxons.  And,  that  its  sphere  of  oper- 
ations was,  Kent  in  England,  of  which  Canterbury  was  tlie  me- 
tropolis, and  of  which  Augustine  was  made  the  first  English 
archbishop. 

Hence,  the  radical  point  on  which  we  are  at  issue  with  Protest- 
ant prelatists  generally,  and  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Chapin  in  particu- 
lar. -  The  question  is,  was  Augustine  a  popish  or  an  anti-popish  pre- 
late ?  If  the  former,  then  it  follows,  that  the  Anglican  succession 
IS  d?:kived  from  Ro:me.  If  the  latter,  and  it  can  be  made 
to  appear  that  the  English  Church  has  "ever  been  legally 
and  canonically  independent  of^""^  the  Bishop  of  Rome.,  then, 
vice  versa. 

If  there  is  any  meaning  in  language,  Mr.  Chapin  affirms  that 
Augustine's  Archbishopric  at  Canterbury  in  Kent,  England,  was 
not  of  Rome :  in  other  words,  that  it  was  anti-popish.  Augus- 
tine was  consecrated  by  the  Archbishops  of  Aries  and  of  L3'ons 
in  Gall,  (France,)  and  "  the  Gallic  Churches  derived  their  episco- 
pate" according  to  "  the  ancients  themselves"  from  "  St.  John  ;" 
and  Augustine,  being  "  \hQ  first  Sa.ron  hishoj),  as  well  as  the  first 
archhishopf  of  Cantei'hury^''  therefore,  "  the  English  bishops  re- 
ceived their  succession,  not^  as  is  often  said,  from  Rome,  but  from 
Arle8^''\  etc. 

Now,  by  turning  over  to  page  360  of  Mr.  C's  book,  we  find  the 
following.  "  In  598,  he  (Augustine)  wrote  to  Gregory,  Bishop  of 
Rome.,  for  advice  touching  certain  points  of  inquiry.  One  of  the 
questions  was,  In  what  manner  he  ought  to  deal  with  the  bishops 
of  Gall  and  Britain  ?  ....  In  answer,  Gregory  tells  him,  that  he 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Bishops  of  Gall,  who  were  subject  to 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  359. 
t  lb.  pp.  291,292. 


345 

the  Bishop  of  Aries  as  their  metropolitan;"  but,  "that  he  ought 
to  have  authority  over  the  British  hishojfs,^''  etc.  From  the  above, 
Mr.  C.  infers,  "  that  there  were  canonical  and  lawful  bishops  in 
Britain  hefore  Augustine  went  there ;"  "  and  consequently,  he 
adds,  "  HE  (Augustine)  owed  submission  to  the  metkopolitan  of 
Britain,  (!)  according  to  the  then  existing  canons  of  the  Church," 
namely:  "the  sixth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  a.d.  325," 
which  enacts,  "  that  the  ancient  customs  and  rights  of  the  Church 
should  not  be  changed." 

It  turns  out,  then,  after  all,  that  Augustine,  through  whom,  as 
the  connecting  link  between  the  English  succession  and  that  of 
EpJiesus  through  the  lines  of  Lj^ons  and  Aries,  and  who  is  de- 
clared to  be  "the  first  Saxon  bishop,"  and  "  the  first  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,"  was  a  USURPER  of  the  rights  of  the  metropolitan 
of  the  British  Church.  Query.  What  has  Mr.  C.  to  oiler  in 
reply  ? 

But,  no.  For,  on  the  one  hand,  authentic  history  shows  how 
totall}^  at  variance  with  the  fact  is  the  pretense  of  Augustine's 
schismatical  infringement  of  the  rights  of  a  pre-existing  metro- 
politanship  in  the  old  British  Church.  That  no  such  order  existed 
in  that  part  of  the  dominion  of  Ethelbert  where  Augustine  was 
established  as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  is  evident  from  the  fact 
already  alluded  to,  namely  :  that  "  the  old  British  churches,  exist- 
ing anterior  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  invasion,  had  been  utterly  swept 
from  North  Britain."  Mr.  Churton  saj^s  :  "  The  last  British  bishops, 
Theonas  of  London,  and  Thadioc  of  York,  retreated  with  the 
remnant  of  their  flocks  into  Wales."*  From  Wales,  therefore, 
and  not  from  Old  Britain,  came  those  bishops,  who,  under  Augus- 
tine's Oak  on  the  bank  of  the  Severn  rejected  his  over- 
tures to  submit  to  the  papal  yoke.  Such  were  the  so-called  seven 
bishops,  whom  Augastine  endeavored  to  bring  over  to  the  See  of 
Rome.  We  repeat:  the  so-called  bishops.  Otherwise,  why  axe 
we  not  furnished  with  the  unhroken  chain  through  said  bishopric 
from  St.  Paul,  who,  Mr.  C.  informs  us,  "  about  a.d.  63,  appears  to 
have  visited  Britain, "f  where  there  has  been  "  at  all  times  since,  a 
Church  of  the  Jiving  God"  based  on  the  prelatical  platform,  having 
derived  her  "ecclesiastical  rites"  from  "the  eastern  churches" 
through  "  Aristobulus,  a  Greek,  and  the  disciple  of  St.  Paul ;":]: 
which,  with  other  "  facts,  proves,  beyond  all  cavil,"  says  Mr.  C, 
"  that  Ijpfore  Augustine  came  to  England,  there  was  a  church  es- 
tablished there,  duly  organized  upon  apostolical  principles, — with 
bishops  owning  and  acknowledging  no  subjection  to  the  pope." 

Yes,  proved,  "  heyond  all  cavil,''''  though  Mr.  C.  assures  us  that 
"  the  earliest  history  of  the  British  Church  has  been  involved  in 
much  obscurity,  by  the  destruction  of  the  records  of  that  Church ;" 

*  The  Early  English  Church,  p.  33. 
t  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  363. 
t  lb.  p.  364. 


346 

and,  that  "  much  doubt  and  uncertainty  has  been  thrown  over  it, 
by  the  manner  in  which  it  has  been  treated  by  the  later  monkish 
historians,  to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  very  much  of  the  history 
of  those  times."  Ilence,  "  the  number  of  bishops  in  England  at 
that  tiiiic^^  (the  time  of  Augustine's  mission  there,)  he  says,  "  we 
do  not  know.''''* 

We  must,  therefore,  in  this  instance,  content  ourselves  to  forego 
the  benefits  of  the  genealogical  register,  the  entire  validity  of  the 
English  Succession  being  made  to  depend  on  the  uninterrupted 
spiritual  descent  from  St.  Paul,  of  the  seven  above  named  protest- 
ing bishops  against  the  attempted  usurpations  of  Augustine,  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

In  regard  to  "  the  number  of  bishops  in  England"  in  the  time 
of  Augustine,  however,  we  would  respectfully  inform  Mr.  C.  that 
Bede  makes  mention  of  one^ — '  the  Bishop  of  Luidhard,  whom  the 
pagan  king,  Ethelbert  of  Kent,  had  agreed  (as  the  condition  ex- 
acted by  her  parents)  should  accompany  his  wife  Bertha,  a  Chris- 
tian lady  of  the  royal  family  of  the  Franks, f  to  preserve  her  faith. 
Beyond  this  one  bishop, — and  who  doubtless  sympathized  with 
Augustine,  tliere  was  none  other  in  England  "  at  this  time.'''' 
Those  who  met  Augustine  in  the  conference  held  on  the  banks  of 
the  Severn,  were  the  exjyatriated  bishops  of  the  old  British 
churches,  existing  anterior  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  invasion,  and  who 
had  lied  for  refuge,  some  to  Brittany  in  France,  and  some  in 
Wales.  Bede  tells  us,  that  '  the  bishops,  or  doctors,'  whom  Au- 
gustine, with  the  assistance  of  King  Ethelbert,  drew  together  to 
confer  with  him  at  a  place  which  is  to  this  day  called  '  Augustine's 
Ac'  (Oak),  were  '  of  the  next  province  of  the  Britons,':]:  i.e.,  Wales. 
The  first  eflbrt  of  Augustine  having  failed,  a  second  conference 
was  appointed,  which  brought  together  seven  of  the  above  expa- 
triated bishops,  and  many  of  their  most  learned  men  from  the 
monastery  of  Baucornaburg,  or  Bangor,  over  which  the  Abbot 
Binooth,  who  bore  a  prominent  part  in  the  debates  with  Augus- 
tine, is  said  to  have  presided  at  that  time.§ 

Now,  it  is  by  a  confounding  of  things  which  thus  plainly  differ — 
it  is  by  identifying  the  English  succession  with  the  old  British 
churches,  (which  are  entirely  separate  and  distinct,)  by  which  Mr. 
C.  and  tlie  advocates  of  Protestant  prelacy  of  the  same  school  with 
him,  labor  to  blind  the  minds  of  the  "unlearned  in  these  matters,"! 
to  a  perception  of  the  real  points  at  issue.  For,  to  prove  that  the 
English  succession  is  derived  through  a  channel  independent  of  all 
connection  with  that  of  Kome,  they  must  show, 

First,  in  what  way  the  line  of  bishops  through  the  See  of  Can- 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  362. 

t  Bede,  Book  XXV.,  c.  25. 

t  lb.,  Book  II.,  c.  2. 

§  lb.     See  also  Chapin's  Primitive  Church,  p.  361. 

II  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  355. 


347 

terbury^  is  derived  from  that  of  the  expatriated  bishops  of  the  old 
British  Church  /  and, 

Second,  having  done  this,  they  must  demonstrate  the  total  ex- 
enwtion  of  that  See  from  all  subjection  to  or  connection  with,  the 
Church  of  Rome  ^ 

I.  In  regard  to  the  first,  we  are  not  aware  that  even  the  learned 
ecclesiastical  genealogist,  Mr.  Chapin  himself,  has  ventured  to  offer 
any  thing  on  the  subject.  True,  on  pages  356-358,  under  the  head 
of  "  Province  of  Canterbury,"  he  gives  us  a  list  of  twenty-nine 
bishops  in  nine  different  dioceses,  between  a.d.  635  and  668.  He 
then  affirms,  that  "  there  were  certainly  seven*  bishops  living  in 
England  at  the  time  of  Aidan's  consecration  as  bishop  of  "Lindis- 
farne,  or  Durham,"f  a.d.  635,  fi-om  which  statements,  nothing  is 
more  natural  than  for  those  "unlearned  in  these  matters"  to  infer, 
not  only  that  there  was  7io  "  scarcity  of  bishops  in  England"  at  the 
time  of  Augustine's  mission,  but,  as  one  of  the  "  seven"  above 
named  "bishops  living  in  England"  was  "  the  metropolitan  of  his 
own  province,":}:  that  that  province  was  Canterbury  !  whereas, 
according  to  his  own  dates  of  consecrations,  the  earliest  in  his  list 
leaves  an  interval  between  Augustine's  mission  and  it,  of  at  least 
twenty-eight  years !  nor  will  the  reader  pass  over  this  fact  as  of 
trivial  moment,  when  he  reflects  that  Mr.  C.'s  statements,  when 
stript  of  their — we  hope,  unintentional — ambiguity,  he  discovers 
that  there  is,  between  Mr.  C.'s  seven  English  bishops,  and  the  old 
British  bishops  of  Wales  who  met  Augustine  on  the  banks  of  the 
Severn,  a  gulf,  which  no  prelatical  sophistry  can  pass. 

Thus  severed,  then,  from  the  old  British  churches,  there  remain 
two  other  alternatives  to  the  English  successionists — either  to  ad- 
mit their  spiritual  descent  from  Rome^  whose  alleged  unbroken 
succession  Stillingfleet  says :  "  is  as  muddy  as  the  Tiber  itself,"  or 
to  derive  it  from  "  the  churches  of  South  Britain^''''  through  "  the 
Culdees." 

"  The  Culdees."  Who  were  they  ?  Answer :  Scotch  lyresby- 
tersy  or  monks,  belonging  to  the  monastery  of  St.  Columba,  him- 
self "  an  Irish  preshyter^  abbot,  and  monk,"  and  under  whom,  a.d, 
505,  the  Picts  were  converted  to  Christianity,  and  among  others 
their  king,  Bridius.  We  quote  from  Mr,  Chapin.  "  In  return  for 
his  eminence,  his  piety,  and  his  labors,  Bridius  gave  to  Columb  the 
island  of  Hii,  or  lona,  and  conferred  upon  him  the  government  of 
the  island.  Bede's  account  of  this  island  is :  '  That  island  hath  for 
its  ruler  an  abbot,  [meaning  Columb,]  who  is  only  a  presbyter,  to 
whose  government  all  the  provinces,  and  even  the  bishops  (con- 
trary to  the  usual  custom)  are  subject,  after  the  example  of  their 

*  From  Mr.  C.'s  own  lists,  as  we  shall  presently  show,  not  one  such  bishop  was  pre- 
eent  in  England  at  that  time, 
t  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  358. 
t  lb.,  p.  358. 


348 

first  doctor,  [meaning  Columb,]  who  was  not  a  bishop,  but  a  jprea- 
l)ytci\  and  a  monk.'  "* 

But  a  revolution  transpired  in  Northumbria,  England^  which 
placed  Oswald  on  the  throne;  and  in  the  year  a.d.  635,  this  king 
sent  to  the  Scotch  cJturches  for  a  bishop,  who,  on  his  arrival,  was 
established,  says  Mr,  Churton,  on  "the  island  of  Lindisfarne,  on 
the  coast  of  Northumberland,  near  to  Bambrough,  his  o^n  royal 
seat,"  A\'hich,  Mr.  Churton  adds,  "  was  the  first  foundation  of  the 
bishopric  of  Durham."f  "  The  monastery  of  St.  Columba"  re- 
spoudocl  to  the  call,  by  sending  to  Oswald  the  "Scottish  mission- 
ary Aidan,"  who  was  also  "  followed  by  many  other  Scottish 
monks  and  priests,  who  were  called  Culdees,  (quasi  Cultores  dei,) 
from  their  great  piety  and  devotion." 

Now,  true,  the  fifth  chapter  of  Bede  is  entitled,  the  "  Life  of 
Bishop  Aidan  ;"  and  it  is  said,  "  from  this  monastery  [in  the  island 
of  Hiij  Aidan  was  sent,  having  received  the  office  of  a  bishop." 
And  again,  under  date  652,  he  says :  "  Finnan  succeeded  him 
[AidauJ  in  the  Episcopate,  being  also  sent  from  the  monastery  of 
Hii,  in  the  Scottish  island,  and  remained  a  long  time  in  the  Epis- 
copate, (Episcopate.  "):j: 

But,  by  ivhom  was  Aidan,  for  example,  consecrated?  Speaking 
of  their  proceedings  in  his  case,  Bede  says,  "  Thus  making  him 
bishop,  they  (the  Guldee  Presbyters  of  the  monastery  of  St. 
Columba)  sent  him  forth  to  preach."§  To  prove,  therefore,  that 
the  consecration  of  Aidan  was  any  other  than  Preshyterial^  it  is 
incumbent  on  the  advocates  of  prelacj^  to  show  when  and  by  whom 
St.  Columba  and  the  Presbyters  of  his  monastery  were  made  pre- 
lates. This,  we  affirm,  neither  Bede,  nor  Bishop  Lloyd,  who  has 
attempted  it,  nor  Mr.  C.,  either  have  done  or  can  do.  Will  pre- 
latists  condescend  to  inform  us  how  it  came  to  pass,  that  "  the 
council  of  Cealehythe,  held  A.  D.  816,  decreed  "  that  no  Scotch 
priest  should  perform  any  function  in  England  ?"  We  can  inform 
them  that  it  was  "  their  waiit  of  metropolitan  hishoj/s^  their  con- 
tempt of  other  orders^  and  the  council's  ignorance  of  the  nature  of 
their  ordination.^^W 

Now,  had  the  fact  presented  itself  in  any  other  book  but  one 
written  ostensibly  to  demonstrate  that  the  English  succession  was 
not  derived  from  Rome,  it  had  not  appeared  so  extraordinary,  that 
Mr.  Chapin's  "  Chapter  XXVIL,"  under  the  head  of  "  alleged 
breaks  in  our  succession,"  and  which  he  pronounces  "absurd," 
and  "  next  to  an  impossibility,"  comes  next  after  his  exhibit  of 
the  tabular  view  of  the  Bomisih  line  from  Peter  to  Gregory  XVI. 
One  would  suppose  that  these  "alleged  breaks,"  from  this  circum- 
stance, related  to  that  line.     But  so  far  from  it,  we  are  at  once  ' 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  pp.  355,  356,  Bede,  Book  III.,  c.  4. 

+  Early  English  Church,  p.  65. 

X  The  Primitive  Church,  pp.  352,  356,  Bede,  Book  III.,  c.  6,  17. 

§  Bede,  B.  III.,  c.  3. 

II  See  Ree's  Encyclopaedia,  Art.  Culdees. 


849 

ferred  to  the  objection  against  tlic  English  succession,  that  from 
A. D,  668,  "by  far  the  greatest  part  of  their  bishops  were  of  Scot- 
tish ordination  by  xViden  and  Finnan,"  etc.,  which  objection,  on 
the  authority  of  Bede,  as  above,  he  labors  to  prove  fallacious.  The 
fair  inference  therefore  is,  that  the  boasted  English  succession  is 
derived,  not  from  Rome,  not  from  Canterbury,  but  from  the  Culdee 
monk^  Aidan^  the  first  bishop  of  the  diocese  of  Landisfarne  or 
Durham,  whose  consecration,  as   we  have   shown,  was   presby- 

TERIAL  ! 

With  prelatists,  if  we  mistake  not,  such  a  derivation,  to  use  the 
language  of  Stilliugfleet,  must  be  esteemed  quite  "  as  muddy"  as 
that  of  Rome. 

Nor  should  it  be  forgotten  in  this  connection,  that,  even  admit- 
ting that  Aidan  was  a  bishop  in  the  prelatical  sense,  yet,  being  no 
more  than  an  ^'■Episcopal  governor^''  he  could  not  transmit  the 
"  apostolic  siLccession,  on  which  all  Episcopal  power  depends,"  "that 
apostolical  succession"  being  only  traceable  "  back  through  the 
Archbishops  of  Canterbury  or  York."* 

Thus,  patient  reader,  after  having  been  compelled  to  "  box  the 
compass,"  in  our  perambulations  of  the  meanderings  of  Mr. 
Chapin  in  his  attempts  to  dodge  "  Old  Rome"  by  way  of  "  Ephesus^'''' 
through  St.  John  ;  of  Britain^  through  St.  Paul  ;  of  Scotland^ 
through  Aidan  ;  and  of  Ireland^  through  St.  Columba  ;  we  are 
actually  brought  back  again  to  "  AUGUSTINE,  the  first  Saxon 
bishop,  and  the  first  archbishop  of  Canterbury."      For, 

II.  Second,  we  proceed  to  the  evidence  in  proof  that  so  far  from 
it  being  true  of  the  English  bishops,  as  Mr.  C.  affirms,  that  "  they 
have  ever  been  legally  and  canqnically  independent"  of  Rome,  the 
comparatively  brief  intervals  of  such  independence  as  mark  their 
history,  is  but  the  measure  of  their  schismatical  rebellion  against 
their  only  legal  and  ecclesiastical  ancestor,  Rome  ! 

True,  the  old  British  bishops  of  Wales,  whom,  on  the  banks  of 
the  Severn,  Augustine  failed  to  subdue  to  the  obedience  of  the 
Roman  See,  were  not  subjected  to  that  yoke  till  about  A.  D.  668. 
Under  Theodore,  the  pope's  primate,  in  the  See  of  Canterbury, 
England,  "Rome  triumphed."  This  triumph  was  signalized  on 
the  one  hand  by  Wilfred's  refusal,  on  his  appointment  to  tho 
bishopric  of  York,  to  receive  consecration  at  the  hands  of  the 
Scottish  bishops  of  Lindisfarne  or  Durham,  and  Litchfield,  and  his 
repairing  to  Paris,  where  he  obtained  it  from  Agilbert,  the  Arch- 
bishop ;  and  on  the  other,  from  the  re-ordination  of  Chad,  at  the 
instigation  of  Theodore,  he  ha^dng  been  previously  ordained 
bishop  of  York,  on  which  occasion  two  Welch  bishops  were  present 
and  assisted."f  Nor  are  we  to  overlook  the  agencies  employed  b}'- 
Rome  in  the  accomplishment  of  this  work.     In  reply  to  their  re- 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  pp.  285,  286. 

t  Churton's  Early  English  Church,  pp.  75-86. 


350 

fusal  to  accede  to  Augustine's  demands,  "  that  thej  would  do  none 
of  those  things,  nor  receive  him  as  their  archbishop ;"  Bedc  re- 
ports him  "  in  a  threatening  manner  to  have  foretold,  that  in  case 
they  would  not  join  in  unity  with  their  brethren,  they  should  be 
warred  upon  by  their  enemies ;  and  if  they  would  not  preach  the 
way  of  life  to  the  English  nation,  they  should,  at  their  hands, 
undergo  the  vengeance  of  death.  All  which,  through  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  divine  judgment,  fell  out  exactly  as  he  had  predicted."* 

Yea,  verily.  For,  "  under  Theodore  and  Wilfrid,  the  Welsh 
Christians  were  not  even  allowed  to  receive  the  sacrament  with 
the  English,  unless  they  conformed,"  Bede  relates,  that  at  one 
time  "  there  were  slain  of  them  who  came  to  pray  (j^resbyters) 
about  a  thousand  and  two  hundred  men  and  only  fifty  escaped  by 
flight"  If 

Thus,  says  Mr.  Churton,  speaking  of  Theodore,  "  he  found  the 
Church  (English)  divided,  he  left  it  united ;  he  found  it  a  mis- 
sionary Church,  scarcely  fixed  in  more  than  two  principal  pro- 
vinces ;  he  left  it,  what  it  ever  will  be,  while  the  country  remains 
in  happiness  and   freedom,   the  Established   Church  of  England.^X 

Protestant  Episcopalians,  what  think  ye  ?  "  The  Established 
Church  of  England,"  with  its  foundation,  according  to  Bede, 
soaked  in  the  purest  anti-papal  blood  that  was  ever  spilt  at  the 
hands  of  Old  Eome's  sanguinary  vassals,  and  that  deed  of  perse- 
cution and  of  blood  lauded  by  one  of  your  very  last  and  most 
distinguished  advocates. 


SECTION  VI. 

Distinction  between  the  British  Church  and  the  Jnglo-EngUsh,  admitted  by  Mr.  C. 
His  disingenuousness,  and  glaring  sophistry. — Effect  of. — Mr.  C.  further  com- 
pared with  himself  in  regard  to  Augustine.  —  Fallacy  of  the  plea  of  his 
"  very  providential"  {alias)  Protestant  (!)  ordination,  by  the  Archbishops  of 
Aries  and  of  Lyons. — Gregory's  reply  to  Augustine's  seventh  of  the  nine  questions 
proposed  to  him. — Legate  of  Leo  L  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  a.d.  455. — Decree 
of  the  Emperor  .Justinian  IIL — Not  annulled  between  a.d. 440  and  590. — Romanism 
of  Augustine. — Mr.  Turner  and  Archdeacon  Mason  on.  — Mr.  C.'s  admission,  that 
the  Anglo-Saxons  were  converted  by  Augustine. — 10,000  baptized  in  one  day. — 
The  present  Cathedral  of  Canterbury  identical  with  that  erected  for  Augustine  by 
his  first  royal  convert,  Ethelbert,  King  of  Kent. — Hence  the  Romish  origin  and 

•  descent  of  the  English  line  of  archbishops. — Proved  from  Mr.  C.'s  own  book. — 
Vide  his  Catalogue  of  the  Succession,  divided  into  four  parts  ;  for  which,  see  next 
Section. 

The  reader  will  now,  doubtless,  be  not  a  little  surprised,  to  find 
that  Mr.  Chapin  himself  recognizes  a  distinction,  between  the  old 

*  Bede,  Book  IL,  c.  2.  f  lb.,  Book  II.,  c.  2. 
I  Early  English  Church,  pp.  75,  76. 


351 

Britisli  Churcli  of  "Wales,  and  the  Anglo-Saxon,  Of  the  former, 
he  says,  "  We  have  shown  conclusively,  that  the  British  Churoh 
was  not  originally  a  branch  of  the  Eoraan  Church."*  Surely,  Mr. 
0.  might  well  have  spared  himself  the  toil  of  compiling  some  fif- 
teen pages  of  matter,  in  proving  what  no  one  on  earth  denies.  Of 
the  latter,  he  says,  "  the  Anglo-Saxon  portion  of  it,  though  con- 
verted by  missionaries  froin  Rome^  practically  denied  from  the 
very  outset,  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope,  as  it  is  now  claimed, "f 
etc.     This,  in  every  particular,  we  positively  deny. 

First,  Mr.  C.'s  assertion,  "  That  there  were  at  least  one  arch- 
bishop and  seven  bishops  in  England  when  Augustine  landed 
there,"  as  I  have  shown,  is  a  sheer  imposition  upon  those  "  un- 
learned in  these  matters."  The  paragraph,  taken  as  a  whole,  is  so 
framed,  as  to  make  "  the  Arch-Episcopate  of  Cacrleonl^'^X  ^^  which, 
he  says,  these  bishops  belonged,  identical  with  what  he  alleges  to 
"  be  the  Anglo-Saxon  portion  of  it"  in  Kent,  England,  "  when 
Augustine  landed  there."  But  we  ask,  what,"  portion"  of  the  old 
"  British  Church"  could  that  have  been,  when  Mr.  Churton  tells  us, 
that  "  the  last  British  bishops,  Theonas  of  London  and  Thadioc  of 
York,  retreated  with  the  remnant  of  their  flocks  into  Wales^^^ 
and  that,  according  to  Mr.  Chapin's  own  showing,  six  years  hefore 
the  conference  between  Augustine  and  Dinooth,  they  having  fixed 
their  seat  at  "Kaerllion  ar  Wye — Caer-leon  upon  Wislcer\ 

But  even  granting  that  there  was  a  "portion"  of  the  old  Brit 
ish  Church  in  Kent  "  when  Augustine  landed  there,"  Mr.  C.  tells 
us  that  they  were  "  converted  hy  missionaries  from  Homers     So 
then,  after  all,  that   "  portion,"  whether  large  or  small,  became 
KOMAN. 

But,  says  Mr.  C,  they  "  practically  denied  from  the  very  outset, 
the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  as  it  is  now  claimed."  The  structure 
of  this  sentence  is  glaringly  absurd  and  sophistical.  Mr.  C.'s  ordi- 
nary sagacity,  in  giving  it  a  place  in  his  book,  seems  to  have  for- 
saken him.  What,  Anglo-Saxon  converts  to  Romanism  in  the  A.D. 
596,  protesting  against  the  ministry,  the  doctrines,  and  the  usages 
of  that  church  hy  which  and  to  which  they  had  been  converted, 
"  from  the  very  outset  "?  Pray,  what  sort  of  conversion  can  that 
be,  against  which  the  mind  rises  \ip  in  revolt  '•'■  fro^in  the  very  out- 
set ".^  Then  too,  they  "  denied  the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  as  it  is 
NOW  claAmed.^''  Now,  had  it  not  been  more  in  accordance  both 
with  consistency  aiid  honesty,  had  Mr.  C.  informed  those  "un- 
learned in  these  matters,"  as  to  what  "the  supremacy  of  the  pope" 
was,  "when  Augustine  landed"  in  Kent?  Also,  if  there  were 
any  essential  difference  between  what  popery  was  then  and  now^ 
to  have  pointed  it  out  ?  The  sophistry  of  this  sentence  is  seen,  in 
Mr.  C.'s  attempt  to  palm  upon  his  readers  the  idea  of  great  zeal  on 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  371.  f  lb. 

X  lb.,  p.  369.  \  The  Early  English  Church,  p.  33. 

II  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  361,  note.  \  lb.,  p.  371. 


852 

the  part  of  these  converts  to  Romanism,  by  pointing  them  to  their 
alleged  "  practical  denial"  of — what?     We  answer  : — 

That  very  system  of  religion,  which  that  very  Augustine,  whom 
Mr.  Chapin  styles  "  the  first  Saxon  bishop,  and  the  first  archbishop 
of  Canterbury,"  and  who,  having  been  "  very  providentially"  con- 
secrated by  the  Bishops  of  Aries  and  of  Lyons,  was  sent  into  En- 
gland to  propagate,  under  the  auspices  of  Pope  Gregory  I. ;  and 
who,  as  such,  forms  the  connecting  link  between  the  English  Suc- 
cession through  the  See  of  Canterbury^  and  the  8ee  of  EpJtesus^ 
as  alleged  to  have  been  founded  by  St.  John  ;  and  all  of  which 
proves,  "  conclusively,"  that  the  English  Succession  is  not  de- 
rived from  Rome. 

The  reflecting  and  pious  mind  cannot  but  look  with  deep  sor- 
row on  a  cause  which  cannot  be  sustained,  except  at  the  expense 
of  so  gross  a  dereliction  from  all  scholarlike  propriet}^  and  historic 
fact.     But  to  proceed. 

Mr.  Chapin  has  devoted  seventy-three  ]3ages  of  his  book  (pp. 
285-358)  to  prove,  "  that  the  Church  of  England  did  not  descend 
from  the  Church  of  Rome ;"  and,  with  these,  one  hundred  and 
fifty  additional  pages,  (pp.  358-508)  to  prove  that  her  bishops 
"Aav<?  ever  leen  legally  and  canonically  independent  of^''*  the 
pope. 

As  it  is  our  right,  and,  indeed,  our  duty,  to  weigh  the  merits  of 
any  author  who  writes  such  a  book  on  such  a  subject  in  the  scales 
of  "  even-handed  justice,"  let  us,  in  a  few  particulars,  compare  Mr. 
Chapin  with  himself,  as  to  what  he  affirms  in  regard  to  Augustine. 

Mr.  Chapin^ p.  291,  says:  Himself  p.  360,  says: 

"  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  "  There  were  canonical  and  lawful 
through  whom  the  succession  of  the  bishops  in  Britain  before  Augustine 
English  bishops  is  usually  traced,  re-  went  there ;  and  consequently,  tie  oiccd 
ceived  their  succession,  noU  as  is  often  submission  to  the  metropolitans  of  Brit- 
said,  from  Rome,  but  from  Aries,''  ain,  according  to  the  then  existing 
through  »  AUGUSTINE,"  etc.  canons  of  the  Church." 

Now,  having  shown  conclusively,  as  we  claim  to  have  done,  that 
the  old  British  churches  which  existed  a?iterior  to  the  Anglo-Saxon 
invasion,  and  which  had  been  utterly  swept .  from  North  Britain 
p^'ior  to  the  mission  of  Augustine,  are  entirely  separate  and  distinct 
from  the  English  Church ;  and  having  also  pointed  out  the  impos- 
sibility, that  the  Anglican  succession  could  have  been  derived 
from  the  former,  we  leave  Mr.  C.  to  reconcile,  as  best  he  can,  what 
he  alleges  as  above  of  Augustine's  canonical  duty  of  sidmissimi 
"  to  the  metropolitan  of  Britain,"  etc.,  with  his  favorite  theory,  that 
the  English  succession  is  derived,  "?26'^,  as  is  often  said,  from.  Rome^ 
but  from  Arles,^"*  through  "Augustine,"  as  "  the  first  Saxon  lishop, 
amd  the  first  archhishoj)  of  Canterlury^ 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  359. 


353 

In  proof  that  tlio  Anglican  succession  from  Augustine  was  not 
from  Kome,  Mr.  C.  refers  us  to  his  "  very  providential"  consecra- 
tion at  the  hands  of  the  archbishops  of  Lyons  and  of  Aries,  who 
traced  their  descent  "back  to  St.  John,"  by  which  of  course  we 
are  to  understand  that  these  Gallic  churches  were  purely  Protes- 
tant. But,  let  us  see.  In  reply  to  the  seventh,  out  of  the  nine 
questions  propounded  by  Augustine  to  Gregory  on  his  accession 
to  the  See  of  Canterbury — viz.,  "How  are  we  to  deal  with  the 
bishops  of  France  and  of  Britain?"  the  Pope  says  :  "  We  give  you 
,no  authority  over  the  bishops  of  France^  because  the  bishop  of 
^r  Aries  received  the  pall  in  ancient  times  from  my  predecessor^  and 

we  are  not  to  deprive  him  of  the  authority  he  has  received 

But  as  for  all  the  bishops  of  Britain,  we  commit  them  to  your 
care^''  etc.  And  on  the  strength  of  this  answer,  "Augustine  con- 
ceived himself  invested  with  full  authority  to  reduce  the  British 
bishops  to  the  obedience  of  Eome."*  We  refer  the  reader  to  pages 
349,  350,  that  he  may  see  how  this  subjugation  was  finally  accom- 
plished. 

Then,  further.  As  far  back  as  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  a.d. 
451,  the  legates  of  Pope  Leo  I.  hold  the  following  language  :  "Leo, 
the  most  holy  archbishop  of  great  and  old  Rome^''  etc.f  In  ac- 
cordance with  this,  in  a.d.  455,  some  bishops  belonging  to  the  pro- 
vince of  Hilary,  metropolitan  of  Arles.^  appealed  from  his  sentence 
to  Leo  I.,  who  not  only  entertained  their  appeal,  but  deposed 
Hilary,  which  act  of  deposition  was  confirmed  by  the  Emperor 
Justinian  III.,  in  the  following  language:  "  We  decree  that  neither 
the  bishops  of  Gaul^  nor  of  the  other  provinces,  any  thing  should 
be  taken  in  hand  contrary  to  the  ancient  custom,  without  the  'vene- 
rahle  ])ope  of  the  eternal  city^  but  whatever  the  authority  of  the 
Apostolic  See  shall  sanction,  is  to  he  a  laiu  to  them  allJ^"^  Besides, 
the  governor  of  the  province  was  empowered  to  compel  the  bish- 
ops, when  summoned,  to  attend  the  tribunal  of  the  pope  ! 

Between  Leo  I.,  consecrated  a.d.  440,  and  Gregory  I.,  in  a.d. 
590,  a  period  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  the  question  is,  was 
this  edict  of  Justinian  III.  annulled  f  So  far  from,  it,  it  formed 
tJie  very  basis  of  the  rapidly  growing  power  of  the  popedom.  Of 
the  eighteen  popes  that  intervened,  the  reader,  by  referring  to  our 
historical  remarks  appended  to  the  lists  of  the  popes,  §  will  see  that 
superstition,  ambition,  arrogance,  tj^ranny,  cruelty,  heresy,  and  a 
lusting  after  "  the  pre-eminence,"  cliaracterized  the  most  of  them. 
Mr.  Turner,  speaking  of  Romanism  at  the  time  of  Augustine,  says : 
"  The  peculiar  form  of  this  religion  Avhich  Gregory  and  Augustine 
introduced,   was  of  course   that  system  which  Rome  then  pos- 

*  Treatise  on  "  The  Man  of  Sin."     Edward  M.  Hearn,  M.A.,  Trinity  College,  Dub- 
lin.    1844.    pp.  23,  24. 

t  Fry's  Church  History,  late  of  University  of  Oxford,  pp.  146.     London:    1825. 

X  Hallam's  History  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Vol.  11.,  p.  23. 

\  Pp.  307-320.  ^ 

23 


354 

sessed;"*  and  of  the  sphere  of  Augustine's  missionary  operations, 
Archdeacon  Mason  has  successfully  shown,  that  he  '*  was  not  the 
apostle  of  this  island,  not  of  the  Britons,  not  of  the  Scots,  not  of  the 
Picts,  not  of  the  Angles,  not  of  the  Saxons,  not  of  the  Jutes,  hut  of 
Kent  aloner\ 

Upon  the  conversion  of  Ethelbert,  "  within  a  short  period,  all 
the  inhabitants  of  Kent  were  convinced  of  their  folly  in  worship- 
ing Thor  and  Woden,  the  idols  of  their  ancestors,"  and  "upwards 
of  ten  thousand  of  them  were  baptized  on  one  Christmas  day." 
And,  continues  the  author  from  whom  I  now  quote,  "  Ethelbert, 
(a  monarch  of  great  power  and  ability,") was  extremely  anxious 
to  afford  to  Augustine  and  his  comjpanions  the  means  of  perform- 
ing divine  worship  with  decency  and  solemnity ;  and  he  surren- 
dered to  them  his  own  palace,  that  they  might  live  therein,  and 
erect  a  Church  adjoining  ;  at  the  same  time,  he  bestowed  many  am* 
pie  possessions  for  the  maintenance  of  the  priests  who  were  to  be- 
come its  ministers.  Tnis  Chukch  is  now  the  Cathedral  of  Can- 
TERBUKY  !  The  present  structure,  though  ancient,  is  of  date  long 
subsequent  to  the  age  of  Augustine.  After  a  great  fire,  which  con- 
sumed the  cathedral  in  the  eleventh  century,  it  was  rebuilt  by  Lau- 
franc,  and  other  portions  are  of  yet  later  periods ;  stilly  the  cathe- 
dral retains  its  original  consecration^  and  venerable  as  the  fabric 
appears  to  the  eye,  it  acquires  a  greater  title  to  our  respect,  when 
we  reflect  how  long  the  spot  has  been  hallowed  by  the  worship  of 
the  Lord.";}: 

Yes,  Mr.  Chapin,  and  that,  as  conducted  by  that  long,  though 
not  "  unbroken"  line  of  archbishops  who  derive  their  succession, 
not  from  the  papal-resisting  expatriated  bishops  of  old  Britain,  on 
the  banks  of  the  Severn  in  Wales,  but  from  YOUE  OWN  RO- 
MAN AUGUSTINE ! 

I  now  propose  further  to  prove  this,  from  Mr,  Chaj^in's  own 
book.  By  comparing  Mr.  C.'s  tables  of  the  succession  on  pages 
356  and  358  inclusive,  with  that  on  pages  296  and  SO-i  inclusive, 
the  former  of  which  was  compiled  to  sustain  the  assertion  that 
"  there  were  certainly  seven§  [anti-popish]  bishops  in  England 
at  the  time  of  Aidan's  consecration  as  bishop  of  Lindisfarne,  or 
Durham,"  a.b.  635,  the  latter  shows  that  every  one  of  those  bishops 
was  consecrated  either  by  Augustine  himself,  or  one  of  his  suc- 
cessors^ or  by  the  bishop  of  a  Romish  See.  We  will  give  them  in 
the  order  of  their  dates  of  consecration. 

*  Turner's  History  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  p.  32. 

t  Mason's  VindicUs  Ecclesiast.  Anglican,  Lib.  IV,  c.  4.,  Ed.  1638.  London  :  (Powell,) 
p.  123. 

t  History  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  by  Francis  Palgrave,  F.R.S.,  F.S.A.,  pp.  66,  67.  Lon- 
don :  1838. 

§  Mr.  C.'s  own  dates  in  that  table  give  only_^i;e,  up  to  a.d.  635. 


355 


Name. 


Diocese. 


Consccrators. 


1.  Mellitus,     London^ 

2.  Roman  us,   Mochesler, 


Dates. 

A.  D. 

604. 

a 

624. 

(( 

625. 

a 

626. 

a 

633. 

Augustine, 

Justus,  who  was  conse- 
crated  hy  xiuGUSTINE, 

3.  Birinus,       Dorchester,       Bishop   of    Geneva,    an 

Italian, 

4.  Honorius,    Canterbury,      Paulinus,  w^ho  was  con- 

secrated by  Justus,  and 
he  by  Augustine, 

5.  Paulinus,    Rochester,         Justus,   who  was  conse- 

crated by  Augustine, 

We  leave  the  unbiased  reader  to  make  his  own  comment  on 
such  church  authorship,  and  his  own  inferences  as  to  the  anti- 
popish  character  of  the  above-named  English  bishops. 

But  again  :  Thomas  Cranmer  is  inserted  in  Mr.  C.'s  list  as  the 
sixt^^-seventh  archbishop  of  Canterbury  from  Augustine,  and  the 
ninety-ninth  from  St.  John.  Then  next  follows  Reginald  Pole 
as  the  sixty-eighth  from  Augustine,  and  the  one-hundredth  from 
St.  John.  But  on  page  304  Mr.  C.  says,  "  It  will  be  seen  from 
this  list,  that  we  do  not  trace  our  succession  through  Cranmer's 
successor,  Cardinal  Pole."  Why  not  ?  Oh,  he  was  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  under  the  Popish  Mary !  Hence,  though  one  of  the 
links  in  the  "  unbroken",  chain,  he  must,  nevertheless,  be  thrown 
out. 


SECTION  vn. 


THE    subject    continued THE  SUCCESSION, 


1.  From  St.  John  to  jiugustine. — 2.  From  Augustine  to  Cranmer. — Explanation  of  the 
nature  and  use  of  "  THE  PALL." — Coeval  with  the  time  of  Augustine,  and  re- 
tained by  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury  to  this  day  ! — Fallacy  of  the  plea  of  the 
independence  of  the  Anglo-English  Church. — Loss  of  the  independence  of  "  the 
Old  British  Church"  after  a.  d.  731. — Bede. — Evidence  of  the  disingenuousness  of 
Mr.  C— Proof  that  instead  of  only  ONE,  there  are  THIRTY-SIX  Archbishops 
of  Canterbury  and  York  between  AUGUSTINE  and  CRANMER,  who  received 
their  PALLS  from  POPISH  hands  ! — What  then  becomes  of  the  English  succes- 
sion, if  these  share  the  .same  fate  with  Cardinal  POLE  ? — Extraordinary  evolution 
of  Mr.  C. — Failing  in  his  attempts  to  dodge  old  Rome  by  way  of  Ephesus,  Old 
Britain,  Scotland,  Ireland  etc.,  in  order  to  place  the  validity  of  the  English  suc- 
cession beyond  the  reach  of  controversy,  he  assures  the  reader  that  that  succession 
can  be  traced  back  to  the  Apostles  St.  John  and  St.  Paul,  not  only,  but  also  to  St. 
PETER,  the  first  bishop  of  the  ROMISH  SEE. 


this 


Here,  however,  a  most  important  question  presents  itself.     It  is 
is :     Was  said  Resrinald  Pole 


the  only  jwpish  archbishop  of  Can- 


856 


terbury  and  York  ?  Let  us  sec.  We  will  take  a  view  of  the 
whole  chain,  dividing  it  into  four  j)arts.  The  first^  from  St.  John 
to  Augustine.  The  second^  from  Augustine  to  Cranmer.  The 
third,  from  Cranmer  to  John  Moore,  the  consecrator  of  William 
White,  the  first  American  bishop.  The  fourth,  the  American 
bishops.     The 

I.  From  St.  John  to  Augustine. 

Augustine,  Mr.  Chapin  tells  us,  derived  his  Episcopate  from  St. 
John,  as  the  founder  of  the  See  of  Ephesus,  through  the  two 
archdioceses  of  Lyons  and  Aries.     Thus  : 

ST.  JOHN. 
1.  PoLYCARP,  Bishop  of  Smyrna, 

Bishops  of  Lijons.  Bishops  of  Aries. 


2.     (1)  Pothinus, 
8.     (2)  Irengeus, 

4.  (3)  Zacharias. 

5.  (4)  Elias. 

6.  (5)  Faustinus. 

7.  (6)  Verus. 

8.  (7)  Julius. 

9.  (8)  Ptolomy. 

10.  (9)  Vocius. 

11.  (10)  Maximus. 

12.  (11)  Tetradus. 

13.  (12)  Verissimus. 

14.  (13)  Justus, 

15.  (14)  Albinus. 

16.  (15)  Martin. 

17.  (16)  Antiochus. 

18.  (17)  Elpidius. 

19.  (18)  Sicarius. 

20.  (19)  Eucherius  L 

21.  (20)  Patiens, 

22.  (21)  Lupicinus. 

23.  (22)  Rusticus, 

24.  (23)  Stephanus, 

25.  (24)  Viventiolus, 

26.  (25)  Eucherius  II 

27.  (26)  Lupus, 

28.  (27)  Licontius, 

29.  (28)  Sacerdos, 
80.  (29)  Nicetus, 

31.  (30)  Priscus, 

32.  (31)   ^THEREUS, 


177. 
179-202. 


374. 


427. 
451. 

494. 
499. 
515. 
524. 
538. 
542. 
549. 
562. 
578. 
589. 


(1)  Trophinus. 

(2)  Regulus. 

(3)  Martin  I., 

(4)  Victor, 

(5)  Marinus, 

(6)  Martin  II. 

(7)  Valentine, 

(8)  Saturnius, 

(9)  Artemius. 

(10)  Concerdius, 

(11)  Heros. 

(12)  Patroclus, 

(13)  Ilonoratus, 

(14)  Hilary, 

(15)  Ravenus, 

(16)  Augustalis, 

(17)  Leontius, 

(18)  ^]onius, 

(19)  C;\?sarius, 

(20)  Ananius, 

(21)  Aurelian, 

(22)  Sapandus, 

(23)  Licerius, 

(24)  ViRGILIUS, 


254. 
266. 
313. 

346. 
353. 

374. 

412. 
426. 
483. 
449. 
455. 
462. 
492. 
506. 
543. 
546. 
557. 
586. 
588. 


AUGUSTINE. 


357 

Now,  in  regard  to  this  division,  at  the  very  point  where  the 
evidence  to  authenticate  the  validity  of  its  several  links  is  most 
wanting,  there,  we  affirm,  it  totally  fails.  We  have  shown  conclu- 
sively (pages  336-338)  from  the  admitted  authentic  chronology  of 
those  early  times,  the  impossibility  that  Polycarp  could  have  been 
consecrated  bishop  of  Smyrna,  either  by  the  apostles,  or  by  "St. 
John."  And  as  to  the  other  links,  connecting  the  "  bishops  of 
Lyons  with  Polycarp,  the  only  information  we  have  is,  that  "  an 
ancient  Irish  historian  of  the  sixth  or  seventh  century  says,  that 
the  Grallican  course  (that  is,  Liturgy)  was  first  chaunted  by  St, 
John,  then  by  the  blessed  Polycarp,  then  by  Iren:eus,  Bishop  of 
Lyons,  in  Gaul."*  But  Pothynus,  who,  in  the  table,  comes  in 
between  Polycarp  and  Irenajus,  is  left  out!  But  as  he  was  "  eighty 
years  old  when  Polycarp  died,"  and  was  "  a  Greek,"  Mr.  C.  con- 
cludes that  Polycarp  must  have  consecrated  him  the  first  bishop  of 
Lyons  !\  On  the  other  hand,  the  line  of  bishops  in  the  archdiocese 
of  Aries  commences  at  a  much  later  date.  It  would  be  a  loss  of 
time  to  pursue  this  branch  of  inquiry  further.  Whenever,  or 
however,  these  archdioceses  originated,  the  edict  of  Justinian  III., 
as  given  on  page  353,  shows  that  both  were  subject  to  "  the  vener- 
able pope  of  the  eternal  city."  And  this  accords  well  with  Gre- 
gory's declaration  to  Augustine,  that  "  the  bishop  of  Aries  received 
his  pall  in  ancient  times  from  his  predecessors."  The  next  divi- 
sion: 

II.  From  Augustine  to  Ceanmee,  through  the  archiepiscopate 
of  Canterbury. 

Mr.  Chapin  tells  us,  that  "  the  apostolical  succession  is  traced 
back  through  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury, ^^  etc. 

We  must  here  j)remise,  that  a  proper  understanding  of  the  eccle- 
siastical relations  of  this  "  succession"  requires  an  explanation  of  the 
nature  and  use  of  "  the  pall,''''  which  Gregory  informs  his  Anglican 
vassal,  Augustine,  "  the  bishops  of  Aries  received  from  his  prede- 
cessors," Fox,  the  venerable  martyrologist,  and  Johnson,  in  his 
Clergyman's  Vade  Mecum,  tells  us  that  Romanists  hold  that  "  this 
PALL  was  a  supernatural  robe  of  lamb's  wool, — taken  from  the 
body  of  St.  Peter,  as  a  fullness  of  the  office  pontifical, — curiously 
adorned,  and  worn  by  the  archbishop  when  he  celebrated.":|:  Fox 
also  informs  us  that  Pope  Alexander  III.  "  decreed  that  no  arch- 
bishop should  receive  the  pall,  unless  he  should  first  swear,"  and 
of  which  the  following  is  a  copy,  "  as  it  is  contained  in  their  own 
words :" 

"  The  form  and  manner,  how  and  by  what  words  the  pope  is  wont  to  give  the 
pall  unto  the  archbishop,  in  English  : — 

"  To  the  honor  of  almighty  God,  and  of  blessed  Mary,  the  Virgin,  and  of 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  293.  t  lb.,  p.  292. 

X  Fox's  Acts  and  Men.,  p.  259,  Vol.  I.,  fol.  London.  1684.  Vade  Mecum,  Vol.  I , 
p.  41.  4th  cd.,  1715. 


858 

Peter  and  Paul,  and  of  our  Lord,  Pope  N  ,  and  of  the  Holy  Church  of  Rome, 
and  also  of  the  Church  N.  committed  to  your  charge,  we  give  you  the  pall,  taken 
from  the  body  of  St.  Peter,  as  a  fullness  of  the  office  pontifical,  which  you  may 
wear  within  your  own  Church  upon  certain  days,  wnich  be  expressed  in  the 
privileges  of  the  said  Church,  granted  by  the  See  apostolic." 

"  In  like  manner  proceedeth  the  oath  of  every  bishop  swearing  obedience  to 
the  pope,  in  like  Avords  as  followeth,  in  English  : — 

"1,  N.,  Bishop  of  N.,  from  this  hour  henceforth,  will  be  faithful  and  obedient 
to  l^lessed  St.  Peter,  and  to  the  Holy  Apostolic  Church  of  Rome,  and  to  my 

Lord  N.  the  Pope To  the  retaining  and  maintaining  the  papacy  of 

Rome,  and  the  regalities  of  St.  Peter,  I  shall  be  aider  (so  mine  order  be  saved) 
against  all  persons,  etc.     So  God  help  me  and  these  holy  gospels  of  God."* 

The  question  now  is,  was  this  "  pall"  received,  and  has  it  been 
retained  bj  the  archbishops  of  Canterhiry,  from  the  time  of  Au- 
gustine down  to  this  time  f     We  shall  let  Johnson  answer, 

"  Both  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  he  of  York,  from  the  time  of  Austin 
fA.D.  59G]  and  Paulinus,  [a.d.  635,]  down  to  the  time  of  Henry  VIll.,  (saving 
that  eight  of  this  province  (York)  had  it  not-  namely,  those  between  Paulinus 
and  Egbert)  received  a  pall  from  Rome,  for  which  they  paid  an  unreasonable 
sum.f It  is  still  the  arms  or  device  of  the  Archbishopric  of  Canter- 
bury !"  J 

Mr.  Chapin  devotes  twenty-two  pages  of  his  book,  from  359  to 
381,  to  prove  that  the  Anglo-English  churches  were  i/idependent 
of  the  Komish  See.  And  we  admit,  that  "  'twas  pretended"  by  the 
English  archbishops  that  "  the  pall,"  as  above,  was  nothing  more 
than  "an  ensig^i  of  archiepiscopal  authority,"  and  that  that  pre- 
tense is  still  urged.  But  the  reader  has  only  to  run  his  eye  over 
these  pages,  to  discover  that  the  evidence  in  proof  of  this  alleged 
independence,  at  least  down  to  the  time  of  the  reformation  under 
Henrj^  VIII.,  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  the  unavailing  re- 
monstrances  of  kings  and  parliaments  against  the  political  and  ec- 
clesiastical supremacy  of  a  power  whose  tenderest  mercies  were  the 
extreme  of  cruelty.  Of  the  independence  of  the  old  British  churches 
prior  to  the  mission  of  Augustine,  there  is  no  dispute.  But  we 
have  shown  conclusively,  that  those  churches  formed  no  part  of 
the  Anglo-Saxon  Church  at  the  time  of  that  mission.  Hence^  the 
imjpossibility  that  "  tlie  English  successionl''  could  have  been  de- 
rived from  them.  So  far  ii-om  it,  even  the  old  British  churches, 
which  had  retained  their  independence  till  a.d.  731,  when  Bede  fin- 
ished his  history,  soon  after  became  merged  into,  and  thenceforward 
formed  a  part  of,  the  Anglo-Saxon  Church  founded  in  Kent  by  tlie 

*  Fox's  Acts  and  Mon.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  259. 

t  So  j;reat  was  the  drain  of  wealth  from  Britain  by  tlie  pope,  ihat  in  the  time  of 
Henry  I.,  a.d.  1100-113o,  a  sum  equal  to  .£10,000  sterling  was  paid  by  the  archbishop 
of  York  for  his  pall!  And  in  the  reii^n  of  Edward  III.,  a.d.  1327,  the'  English  Parlia- 
ment remonstrated  against  the  exorbitant  e.vactions  of  the  papal  See  in  these  words-: — 
"That  the  taxes  paid  to  the  pope  of  Rome  for  ecclesiastical  digniiics,  do  amount  to  Jive 
fold  as  much  as  the  taxes  of  all  profits,  as  appear  to  the  king  by  the  year,  of  his  whole 
realmc."  (An.  50,  Edward  HI.,  Tit.  94.)  Historical  Treatise  on  "The  Man  of  Sin." 
Edward  M.  Hearn,  M.A.,  Trinity  College,  Dublin.     1844. 

I  Johnson's  Vade  Mecum,  Vol.  I.,  p.  41. 


359 


Romish  Augustine.  And,  in  conclusion  on  this  subject,  we  affirm, 
tliat  nothing  is  more  palpable  on  the  face  of  the  entire  historic 
period  between  the  "consecration  of  Augustine,  a.d.  596,  and  the 
throwing  off  the  papal  yoke  by  Henry  VIII.,  about  a.d.  1520,  than 
the  fact  that  although  England  constantly  exhibited  a  jealous  sub- 
mission to  the  pope's  demands,  and  a  restless  endurance  of  his  un- 
hallowed sway,  yet  that  tlie  triumph  of  Roine  was  com])lete. 

Between  Augustine  and  Cranmer,  in  the  See  of  Canterbury,  there 
were  sixty-seven  archbishops.  Of  these,  as  evidence  of  the  disin- 
genuousness  of  Mr.  C,  in  his  attempt  to  palm  "  Cardinal  Pole" 
upon  those  who  are  "  unlearned  in  these  matters,"  as  the  only 
Romish  archbishop  of  that  number,  the  following  table  will  show, 
that  nearly  one-half  of  them  were  consecrated  either  by  the  popes 
themselves,  or  by  their  legates  : 


Names. 

1.  Augustine, 

2.  Lawrence, 

3.  Mellitus, 

4.  Justus, 

5.  Honorius. 


6.  Adeotatus, 

7.  Theodore, 

8.  Birthwald, 

9.  Tatwine, 

10.  Northelm, 

11.  Cuthbert, 

12.  Breo;win, 

13.  Lambert, 

14.  ^Ethelred  L, 

15.  Wulfred, 

16.  Theogild, 

17.  Ceolnoth, 

18.  J^thelred  IL, 

19.  Phlegmund, 


20.  Athelm, 


Consecrated  by. 
^thereus  and  Virgilius, 
Augustine, 
do. 
do. 
Paulintts,  consecrated  by  Justus, 
and  he  by  Augustine. 
Vacancy  18  months, 
Ithamar.,  cons,  by  Honorius,  etc. 
y ITALIAN,  76th  Bishop  of  Rome, 
Godicin.^  of  Gall.     Some  say  of 
Wales, 

Gregory  III., 


Paul,  94th  Bishop  of  Rome, 
Leo  III.,  97th  Bishop  of  Rome, 


FoRMOSUS,  112th  Bishop  of  Rome. 
The  ordinations  of  this  pope 
were  declared  tiwZZ,  both  by  Pope 
Stephen  VI.  and  Sergius  III.  Yet 
Phlegmund  was  never  re-ordain- 
ed. And  by  him,  most  of  the 
English  Mshops  were  ordained 
for  26  years  !  What  became  of 
the  succession  here  ? 


Dates  of. 

A.D 

.  596 

a 

605 

u 

619 

u 

624 

(( 

634 

u 

654 

a 

668 

(( 

693 

a 

731 

<( 

735 

u 

742 

u 

759 

u 

763 

a 

793 

u 

803 

a 

830 

u 

830 

<( 

871 

Phlegmund^ 


"    891 
"    923 


360 


Names. 

Consecrated  by. 

Dates  of. 

21.  Wulfelm, 

A.D.  928 

22,  Odo  Scvcrus, 

"     941 

28.  Dunstan, 

"     959 

24.  ^thalgar, 

"     988 

25.  Siriciis, 

"     989 

26.  Aluricus, 

^'     996 

27.  Elphcge, 

"  1005 

28.  Leon  Elskan, 

"  1013 

29.  Agelnoth, 

Rome, 

"  1020 

80.  Edsin, 

"  1088 

31.  Hob.  Norman, 

"  1050 

82.  Stigand, 

"  1052 

88.  Lanfranc, 

Yaicac J  four  years. 

"  1070 

84.  Anselm, 

"  1093 

85.  Kodulph, 

"  1114 

86.  Wm.  Corbell, 

Nominated  by  the 
Vacancy  two  years. 

king, 

"  1122 

37.  Theobald, 

Card.  Albert  (Legate), 

"  1138 

88.  Thomas  a  Becket 

'j 

"  1162 

39.  Eichard, 

Alexander  III.,  168th  Bp.  of 

40.  Baldwin  Fordensis, 

41.  Reginald  Fitz, 

42.  Huber  Walter, 

43.  Steph.  Langton, 


44.  R.  Wethersfield, 

45.  Edmund, 

46.  Boniface, 


47.  R.  Kilwarby, 


48.  John  Peckham, 


Rome.  YiCTOR  TV.,  his  ri- 
val. His  chair  sustained 
by  sedition,  war,  and  blood- 
shed, 

Joceline, 

Innocent  III.,  174th  Bp,  of 
Rome,  deposed  King  John ; 
after  six  years  restored  him, 
but  held  the  kingdom  as  a 
fee  farm, 


Innocent  IV.,  178th  Bp.  of 
Rome.  He  "impoverished 
the  universal  church  more 
than  all  his  predecessors," 

His  consecrator,  7r^?i.  Britton, 
Bp.  of  Bath  and  Wells,  was 
consecrated  by  Pope  Ckles- 
TiNE  v.,  177th  B]).  of  Rome, 

NicnoLAS  III.,  ISOth  Bp.  of 
Rome.  He  exacted  of  Peck- 
ham  4000  marks  for  his  pall, 
on  pain  of  excommunication, 


"  1174 
"  1184 
"  1191 
"  1193 


"  1207 
"  1229 
"  1234 


"  1245 


1172 


1278 


861 


Names. 

49.  E.  "Winclielsea, 

50.  Wal.  Eajnold, 

51.  Sim.  Mcphani, 

52.  J.  Stratford, 

53.  Th.  Bradwardine, 

54.  Sim.  Islip, 


55.  Sim.  Langliam, 
66.  W.  Wittlesej, 

57.  Sim.  Sudbury, 

58.  W.  Courtnaj, 

59.  Th.  Arundel, 

60.  Hy.  Chinchely, 


Consecrated  hy. 

Suabino  (Cardinal), 

H.  Winclielsea^ 

JoHx-T  XXII.,  194tliBp.  of  Rome, 

Vitali  (Cardinal), 

Bertrand  (do.), 

R.  Straff  (/I'd — he,  by  J.  Strat- 
ford— he,  by  Cardinal  Vita- 
li, of  Avignon, 


Dates  of. 
"  1294 
"  1313 
"  1328 
"  1333 
"  1348 


1349 
1366 
1368 
1375 
1381 
1396 


Geegoet  XII._,  203d  Bp.  of 
Rome.  Schism  in  the  pope- 
dom. This  pope  deposed  by 
the  Council  of  Constance,  as 
no  hishoj?  at  all.  Yet  Cliiu- 
chely  ordained  bishops  in  the 
English  Church  for  29  years, 
without  7'eordinatio?i.  "What 
an  unbroken  line  of  valid  con- 
secrations," "  1414 

61.  J.  Stafford,  "  1443 

62.  John  Kemp,  "  1452 

63.  Th.  Bourcher,  "  1454 

64.  John  Morton,  "  1486 

65.  Henry  Dean,  "      "  1501 

66.  W.  Wareham,  '  "  1503 

67.  Thomas  Ceanmee,  "  1533 

68.  Reginald  Pole,  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 

The  first  thing  to  be  observed  in  this  catalogue  is,  the  t/iree  va- 
cancies which  occun^ed,  namely,  the  first,  between  Honorius  and 
Adeodatus,  of  eighteen  months,  a.d.  634-654.  The  second,  be- 
tween Langfranc  and  Anselm,  of  four  years,  a.d.  1073-1093. 
The  third,  between  Wm.  Corbell  and  Theobald,  of  two  years,  a.d. 
1122-1138. 

Second.  Thejirst  seven  of  these  archbishops  were  either  "  Ital- 
ians or  foreigners." 

Third.  Of  the  whole  number,  eleven  were  consecrated  by  dif- 
ferent popes,  and  tldrteen  by  other  Romish  consecrators.  Total, 
TWENTY-FouE.     And,  if  to  these  we  add. 

Fourth,  the  cotemporaneous  Archbishops  of  Yorh  who  received 
jpopish  consecration,  to  the  above  may  be  annexed  the  following, 
namely : 


862 


AKCHBIS^OPS   OF   YORK. 


Names. 

Consecrated  by. 

Pates  cf. 

1. 

Thurston, 

Pope  Calixtus, 

A.D. 

1119 

2. 

llj.  Mardac, 

"      EuOENIUS, 

u 

1147 

3. 

Roger, 

Theobald,   Archbp.  of 

Canter- 

bury.     He  by  Card.  Albert, 

1154 

4. 

Geof.  Plantag. 

By  the  Pope's  order. 

1191 

5. 

Walter  Gray. 

Ste])h.  Langion, 

See  43d  of  Canterbury. 

1215 

6. 

Godfrey  de  Kinton, 

Rome, 

1258 

7. 

Win,  Wickwane, 

do. 

1279 

8. 

J.  Komanus, 

do. 

1285 

9. 

Th.  Corbridge, 

Pope  Boniface  YIII., 

1299 

10. 

Wm.  de  Greenfield 

,     ''      Clement  Y. 

1305 

11. 

Wm.  de  Melton, 

Avignon, 

1307 

12. 

Wm.  le  Zouch, 

Pope  Clement  YI., 

1342 

Total,  with  the  above,  thirty -six. 

We  might  thus  with  equal  facility  show  that  the  same  holds  true 
of  the  popish  ordinations  of  the  cotemporaneous  diocesan  bishops; 
for  example,  those  of  Durham  and  Winchester.  But  it  were  use- 
less to  pursue  this  subject  further.  It  only  remains  for  us  to  add 
in  conclusion  regarding  these  consecrations,  that,  on  the  prelatical 
hypothesis  of  an  "  unbroken  apostolical  succession,"  alleged  to  be 
"  fastened,  in  the  beginning,  to  the  throne  of  God,  and  preserved 
as  inviolate  as  the  line  of  the  descent  of  Adam,'"  etc. — 

"  Ten  or  ten  thousandth,  breaks  the  chain  alike.'" — Pope. 

Apply  now,  therefore,  the  same  rule  of  excision  from  said  chain, 
to  the  above  thirty-six  archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York,  who, 
as  shown  above,  have  received ^y'^pish  ordination  between  Augus- 
tine and  Cranmer,  as  does  Mr.  Chapiu  to  the  popish  archbishop, 
Cardinal  Pole,  the  regular  successor  of  Cranmer :  and  we  deferentially 
ask,  what  becomes  of  the  succession  of  the  Anglican  Church,  de- 
rived, as  Mr.  C.  assures  us  it  is,  from  Augustine,  through  the  arch- 
bishops of  Canterbury  and  York  ? 

The  ver7  ingenious  and  ingenuous  Mr.  C,  however,  has  provided 
at  his  hand  a  ready  door  of  escape  from  the  dilemma  Avhich  this 
interrogator}^  would  involve.  Having  told  us,  page  346,  that  "  the 
materials  for  tracing  the  succession  of  the  Church  of  Rome"  were 
"  more  full  and  ample  than  those  of  any  other ;"  and,  that  from 
the  time  of  the  first  translation  of  a  diocesan  bishop  to  Rome,  in 
the  person  of  Formosus  of  Porto,  A.D.  891,  they  became  frequent, 
and  were  made  "  from  nearly  every  part  of  Christendom  ;"  there- 
fore, "  it  may  be  safely  assumed,"  says  he,  "  that  nearly  all  the  suc- 
cessions in  the  ivorld  entek  into,  and  assist  in  authentica'iing  that 
of  the  BisDOPS  OF  Rome. 


363 

Surely,  Bishop  Hughes  should  convene  a  council,  and  pass  a 
unanimous  vote  of  thanks  to  Mr.  C,  for  this  concession  to,  and 
zealous  advocacy  of,  the  uninterrupted  perpetuity  and  universal 
prevalence  of  Romish  episcopacy  throughout  Christendom. 

But,  it  is  only  "  nearly  all  the  successions  in  the  world,"  that 
'*  enter  into  and  assist  in  authenticating  that  of  the  bishops  of 
Rome."  JMot  quite  all.  "  The  English  succession'^  is  an  exception. 
Augustine,  vi'hen  sent  among  the  Saxons  by  Pope  Gregory  I., 
"  owed  suhnission  to  the  inetro])olitan  of  Britain  j''''  and  they  "do 
not  trace  their  succession  through  Cranmer's  successor,"  the  poinsh 
"  Cardinal  Pole  !"  So  far  from  it,  though  ^'■nearly  all  the  succes- 
sions in  the  world  enter  into  that  of  the  bishops  of  Rome,"  yet, 
says  Mr.  C,  "  the  succession  [English]  may  be  traced  in  a  great 
variety  of  waysJ'^  '  The  reader  may  therefore  perceive  how  en- 
tirely mistaken  are  our  Presbyterian  opponents — all  of  Avhom  are 
'  unlearned  in  these  matters,'  in  supposing  that  we  are  dependent 
on  the  corrupt  Church  of  Rome  for  "  our  succession."  ' 

But,  "tell  it  not  in  Gath."'  Mr.  C.  having  attempted,  as  we 
have  said,  to  dodge  Old  Rome  by  way  of  Ephesus,  Old  Britain, 
Scotland,  Ireland,  etc.,  suddenly  veers  round  and  tells  us  that,  "if 
desired,  the  later  bishops  [English]  may  be  traced  through  the  line 

of  THE  BISHOPS  OF  RoME."f 

"The  later  bishops."  How  late?  Those  subsequent  to  the 
time  of  Pole  ?  Nay,  verily,  for  Mr.  C.  carries  us  back  to  "  Theo- 
dore, the  seventh  archbishop  of  Canterbury — (that  is,  in  the  direct 
line  of  succession  from  Augustine)  who,  he  tells  us,  "  Avas  conse- 
crated by  the  bishop  of  Rome,  [Yitalian,]  and  filled  the  archiepis- 
copal  chair  from  668  to  693,  twenty -five  years."  And  he  adds : 
"Those  bishops,  therefore, ,  who  were  consecrated  by  him  in 
England^  could  trace  their  succession  through  him  back  to  St. 
PETER" !  And,  strange  to  tell,  as  though  panic-stricken  at  the 
thought  of  the  injustice  done  to  Augustine,  by  the  affirmation  that 
he,  as  the  first  linlc  in  the  chain  of  the  Canterberian  archbishops, 
"  owed  submission  to  the  metropolitan  of  Britain  ;"  to  the  name  of 
Theodore,  as  above,  he  adds  those  of  several  others  in  the  same 
Hue,  who  were  either  consecrated  by  the  popes  themselves,  or  who 
were  foreign  Roman  prelates,  and  by  whom  English  dioceses  were 
formed  and  English  bishops  consecrated,  not  a  few:  for  example, 
Theobald,  bishop  of  Ilostia,  Robert  Winchelsey,  John  Strat- 
ford, and  Thomas  Bradwardine,  '■'■all  cardinal  hishoj)s ;^^  and  in 
addition  to  them,  "  one  other  foreign  bishop,  Mark  A.  de  Domi- 
Nus,  archbishop  of  Spalatro^  a  Church  in  communion  with  the  See 
of  Rome,  assisted  in  the  consecration  of  Nicholas  Fenton  and 
George  Monteigne,  and  these  assisted  in  the  consecration  of  so 
many  other  bishops,  that  since  1638  [a  period  of  two  hundred  and 
twenty-seven  years !],  there  has  not  heen  a  hishop  consecrated  in 

(1)  2  Sam.  1  :  20. 
»  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  321.  f  lb-,  P-  320. 


864 

England  that  could  not  trace  liis  succession  to  the  archlishops  of 
Spalatro^  and  then  hack  to  the  apostles''' !  And  upon  the  strength 
of  this,  Mr.  C.  arrives  at  the  very  important  conelusion,  that,  "  if 
THERE  HAD  BEEN  ANY  BREAK  iu  thc  succcssion  before  that  time,  we 
should  now  have  a  vahd  succession"  ! 

Then,  on  the  other  hand,  as  through  Berthwald,  the  successor 
of  Theodore,  who  was  consecrated  by  Godwin,  Archbishop  of 
Wales,  who,  he  affirms  very  confidently,  traced  their  succession  to 
Jerusalem  and  St.  James ;"  and  as  "Augustine  traced  his  succes- 
sion back  through  IrenaBus  to  St.  John,"  therefore,  "  all  subse- 
quent bishops  must  be  able  to  do  the  same ;"  that  is,  to  trace  their 
spiritual  pedigree  back  to  "St.  James,  to -St.  John,  and  to  St. 
Petek"  ! !  !*  And  THUS  it  is,  he  adds,  "  that  the  succession  may 
be  traced  in  a  great  variety  of  v:ays''^  !\ 

But  to  the  above,  we  reply,  very  briefly,  in  regard  to  Berthwald, 
first,  that  in  his  list,  Mr.  C.  admits  that  some  say  that  he  was  the 
metropolitan  "of  Gall,  {Galllarum^  which,  from  the  fact  that 
Bede  in  his  day,  A.D.  731,  sa3's  of  these  old  British  bishops  of 
Wales,  that  "it  was  not  their  custom  to  pay  any  respect  to  the 
{Roman)  faith  and  religion  of  the  English,  nor  to  correspond  with 
them  any  more  than  with  jpagans^''\  we  think  was  the  most 
probable.  The  old  Britons  were  not  subjugated  to  the  Roman 
yoke  till  after  this  period. 

Then,  second,  Mr.  C.  must  have  forgotten  what  he  says  of  Paul, 
as  having  first  "  labored"  in  "  Britain"  "  as  early  as  a.d.  63,"  and 
that  "Aristobulus,"  his  "  disciple,"  "  when  he  went  into  Britain," 
carried  "  with  him  the  ecclesiastical  rites  of  the  Eastern 
churches,"  etc.§  Or,  was  the  old  British  See  founded  in  an  apos- 
tolical schism  J<5^t«ig^;i  St.  James  and  St.  Paul?     And, 

Third,  as  to  Augustine's  tracing  "  his  succession  back  through 
Irenaeus  to  St.  John,"  after  the  abundant  evidence  already  ad- 
duced to  prove  that  it  is  a  prelatical  ^'■cunningly  devised  fahle^''^ 
having  for  its  object  the  concealment  of  the  unmistakable,  though 
recently  denied  fact  of  the  dependence  of  the  Anglican  and  Ameri- 
can Episcopacy  on  the  Eomish  line  for  its  derivation,  the  reader, 
we  are  sure,  will  readily  excuse  us  from  any  further  appropriation 
of  time  or  labor  in  exposing  its  fallacy. 

(1)  2  Peter  1  :  16. 
*  The  Primitive  Church,  pp.  320,  321.  t  lb.,  — 

\  Bede,  Book  II.,  Chap.  20.  §  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  SG-i. 


365 


SECTION  vni. 

THE  ENGLISH   SUCCESSION,    FROM    THE    PERIOD    OF    THE    REFORMATION 
UND.ER   THE   REIGN   OF   HENRY    VIH. 


The  subjeU  continued. — 3.  The  English  succession  from  Crannier  to  John  Moore. — 
Tabular  view. — Another  attempt  of  Mr.  Chapin  to  dodge  the  Romish  line. — Jeru- 
salem, through  James. — Proof  that  James  was  not  the  bishop  of — Patriarchate  of 
St.  David's  from. — Do.,  of  Llandaff  from  Gall. — Fallacy  of — Mr.  C.  in  error  in 
regard  to  his  alleged  union  of  the  old  British  bishops  with  Augustine  in  preaching 
to  the  English. — Three  inferences. — Fallacy  of  the  alleged  independence  of  the 
English  Church  proved  by  Mr.  C.'s  own  statements. — Her  claim  thereto  a  bor- 
rowed glory. 

We  come  now  to  the  next  division  in  this  great  chain.  This 
extends, 

III.  From  Ceanmer  to  John  Moore,  the  consecrator  of 
William  White,  the  first  American  bishop.  Of  those  following 
the  line  of  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury,  there  are,  according  to 
Mr.  Chapin,  in  all,  twenty,  viz. : 

Names.  Dates 

1.  Thos.  Cranmer,      a.d. 

2.  Keg.  Pole, 

3.  Matt.  Parker,  " 

4.  Edm.  Grindell, 
6.  John  AVhitgift, 

6.  Eichard  Bancroft,  " 

7.  Eobt.  Abbott,  " 

8.  William  Laud,  " 

9.  William  Juxton,  " 
10.  Gilbert  Sheldon,  " 

The  first  thing  which  in  this  connection  calls  for  remark  is,  that 
Mr.  C,  having  attempted,  as  we  have  said,  to  dodge  Old  Eome  by 
way  of  Ephesus,  Britain,  Scotland  and  Ireland,  now  that  he  has 
come  down  to  the  time  of  the  Eeformation,"*  proceeds  to  point 
out  to  his  readers  another  by-path — the  ^^ succession  from  Jeru- 

But  here,  also,  leaving  his  reader  to  grope  his  way  through  total 
darkness,  as  to  any  evidence  of  the  founding  of  such  a  See,  or 
authority  for  placing  "  James  Alpheus,:};  one  of  the  apostles,"  as 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  329.         f  lb.,  p.  322. 

I  We  affirm  that  there  is  not  the  least  evidence  in  the  New  Testament  or  in  authen- 
tic tradition,  to  prove  that  St.  James  was  the  founder  and  diocesan  of  the  See  of 
Jerusalem.  True,  as  that  city  was  the  seat  of  Christianity,  and  the  center  of  operations 
of  "  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb,"  the  neighboring  churches, — e.  g.,  that  of  Antioch, 
referred  thither  for  counsel,  instruction,  and  support.  It  was  highly  suitable,  therefore, 
that  one  of  "  the  twelve"  should  take  up  his  residence  there,  whose  qualifications  should 


of  Con. 

Names. 

Dates 

of  Con 

1553. 

11. 

Wm.  Sancroft, 

A.D. 

1677 

12. 

John  Tillotson, 

1691. 

1559. 

13. 

Thos.  Tenison, 

1691. 

1559. 

14. 

Wm.  Wake, 

1705. 

1577. 

15. 

John  Potter, 

1737. 

1597. 

16. 

Thos.  Seeker, 

1734. 

1609. 

17. 

Thos.  Herring, 

1737. 

1621. 

18. 

Matt.  Ilutton, 

1743 

1633. 

19. 

Fred.  Cornwalli 

-) 

1749 

1660. 

20. 

John  Moore, 

1775 

366 

the  first  link  in  the  chain  of  its  bishops, — (the  catalogue  ending 
with  Sopliroiiius,  the  sixtieth  link,  a.  d.  633-637,  "when  Jeru- 
salem was  taken  by  the  Saracens,  and  the  Patriarchate  was  broken 
up,^') — our  author  proceeds  to  derive  tlirough  it  what  he  calls  "  the 
Patriarchate,  or  archdiocese  of  Meneva,  or  St.  Davids,"*  in  Wales, 
and  of  whom  David,  having  been  consecrated  at  Jerusalem  by 
John  III.,  the  thirty-third  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  was  made  its 
first  archbishop,  A.  d.  519.f 

lie  then  introduces  a  second  archdiocese — that  of  Llandaff — of 
which  he  says  Dubitius  was  the  first  archbishop,  he  having  been 
consecrated  a.  d.  448,  by  Germanus  and  Severus,  two  bishops 
from  Gall,  on  a  visit  to  Britain.:}: 

An  archdiocese,  the  reader  will  understand,  embraces  several 
dioceses,  whose  bishops  are  subordinate  to  the  archbishop. 

Now,  from  the  above,  the  reader  will  also  understand  Mr.  C.  to 
speak  of  two  entirely  separate  and  distinct  archdioceses,  those  of 
Meneva  or  St,  Davids,  and  Llandaff.  But  let  him  take  the  follow- 
ing statements  respecting  them,  from  the  same  pen : 

(1.)  Speaking  of  the  action  of  the  archdiocese  of  Meneva,  in  Wales, 
A.  D.  519,  he  tells  us  that  "  previous  to  this  time  there  had  been  three 
archbishoprics  in  Beitain — London^  York,  and  Caerleon."  And  that 
Theonas,  with  the  great  body  of  his  clerg}^,  as  bishop  of  Gloucester, 
accompanied  by  Thadioc,  archbishop  of  York,  having  "  fled  from 
the  Saxons,  a.  d.  587,§  and  settled  themselves  in  Wales,  established 
their  archiepiscopal  seat  at  Caerleon  upon  Wiske ;  whereupon  the 
two  archbishoprics  of  London  and  York  were  destroyed  by  the 
Saxons,  while  the  latter,  Caerleon,  was  transferred  to  Meneva,  now 
St.  Davids.  Of  course,  the  former,  being  thus  merged  in  that  of 
the  latter,  they  are  identical. 

Take  now  in  this  connection,  the  following  statements,  which 
we  shall  place  in  juxtaposition  : 

fit  him  to  serve  as  mediator  between  the  opposite  parties  of  Jewish  and  Gentile  converts, 
and  to  counsel  and  act  for  the  peace  of  the  Church.  And  who,  of  that  number,  so 
admirably  qualified  for  this  as  "  James,  the  brother  of  our  Lord,"  called  "  the  Just"  ? 
But  that  he  was  neith<;r  invested  with,  and  that  he  performed  none  of  the  powers  of,  a 
prelate, — in  other  words,  that  he  was  twt  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  is  evident  from  the 
following  facts,  viz. :  1st,  The  contributions  raised  by  the  churches  for  the  relief  of  the 
brethren  in  Judea  during  the  dearth  in  the  days  of  Claudius  Cansar,  was  sent  thither  by 
the  hands  of  Barnabas  and  Saul,  not  to  Pope  or  Bishop  St.  James,  but  to  '•  the  elders," 
Tpiff/Sunpoi,  the  appropriate  officers  of  the  Church.  (Acts  11  :  .30  )  And  so.  2d,  of  the 
delegation  sent  by  the  Church  of  Antioch  to  Jerusalem  for  counsel.  (Acts  15  :  15.) 
That  council  was  composed  by  the  apostles  and  presbyters,  and  the  Church,  who,  to- 
gether, received  them,  decided  upon  the  merits  of  their  appeal,  and  made  known  their 
decision  by  letter  to  the  Church  at  Antioch ;  and,  though  James  bore  a  prominent  part 
in  the  transaction,  yet,  from  beginning  to  end,  not  one  word  of  intimation  is  given  that 
he  sustained  any  thing  approaching  to  a  prelatical  relation  to  that  Church.  (See  on  this 
subject,  Coleman  "  On  the  Apostolical  and  Primitive  Church,"  pp.  146-148.) 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  324.  f  lb.,    444  J  lb., 

4  On  p.  361  he  says  597.     See  noti. 


867 

"  Dubritius  Tvas  the  first  Archbishop  "  The  archdiocese  of  Meneva  (St. 
of  LlandaflF."     (p.  324.)  Davids),  contained  sermd/ocesses.     (1.) 

St.  Davids,   by   David;  (2.)  Llandaff, 
by  Dubritius,"  etc. 

"  Dubritius,  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  was  "  The  succession  of  bishops  in  this 
succeeded  by  Telianus,  and  he  by  archbishopric,"  i.  e.,  St.  Davids,  came 
Odocius,  who  was  consecrated  by  Theo-  tlirough  St.  David  from  Jerusalem  ; 
dore  (Roman)  Archbishop  of  Canter-  through  Dubritius  from  Gall  to  Efhe- 
bury."     (lb.)  sus ;  and  through  Odocius  from  Arks 

and  Rome. 

"  The  bishops  of  Llandaff",  therefore,  "  And  from  them,  these  succes- 
are  properly  the  successors  of  Theonas  sions,"  i.  e.,  those  of  Jerusalem,  Gall, 
and  Thadioc,"  i.  c,  the  expatriated  Ephesus,  Aries  and  Rome,  have  been 
founders  of  the  archdiocese  of  Caer-  spread  through  the  whole  body  of 
lean  or  Meneva  (St.  Davids),  which  the  English  Church."* 
Mr.  C.  says  "contained  seven  dioceses." 
rib.) 

Now,  in  regard  to  these  statements,  sQveral  questions  very  ob- 
viousl}^  present  themselves,  as — 

1.  If  Dubritius  was  the  first  archbishop  of  Llandaff.^  how  is  it 
that  his  successors  are  identified  with  the  archdiocese  of  Caerleon 
or  Meneva,  (St.  Davids  ?) 

2.  If  Llandaff"  was  an  aechdiocese,  by  what  canon  law  can  it 
be  reckoned  as  one  of  the  alleged  seven  dioceses  of  Meneva,  or  "St. 
Davids?" 

3.  If  the  arch-diocese  of  Meneva  or  St.  Davids  contained  seveti. 
dioceses  between  a.d.  450  and  600,  how  many,  within  the  same 
period,  were  embraced  under  the  archiepiscopate  of  Llandaff 

4.  How  are  we  to  reconcile  the  alleged  derivation  of  the  arch- 
bishopric of  Meneva  or  St.  Davids  through  Jerusalem,  Gall,  Ephe- 
sus, Aries  and  Borne,  with-  the  declaration  that,  "Avhatever  au- 
thority the  bishop  of  Rome  may  have  had  over  other  bishops,  he 
has  none  over  those  of  England,  inasmuch  as  they  have  ever 
BEEN  legally  and  canonically  independent  of  him  .?"f  And  of  this 
latter  affirmation :     * 

5.  How  is  it  to  be  reconciled  with  the  declaration,  that  the 
above  "successions,"  Jerusalem,  Gall,  Ephesus,  Aries  and  Eomk, 
through  the  archiepiscopate  of  MeucA^a  or  St.  Davids,  "Aaye  been 
spread  through  the  whole  body  of  the  English  GhurchV 

And  yet,  in  the  midst  of  all  this  "  darkness  visible,"  this  "con- 
fusion worse  confounded,"  of  two  archiepiscopates  entirely  sej)arate 
and  distinct,  and  yet  identical,  and  of  the  entire  independence  of 
the  British  churches  and  bishops  of  the  See  of  Eome,  and  yet  of 
her  consecrations  spreading  through  the  whole  body  of  the  En- 
glish Church,  the  reader,  at  the  end  of  two  lines  of  succession,  the 
FIRST  commencing  with  David  as  the  first  archbishop  of  Meneva 
or  St.  Davids,  and  containing  eighty  four  links,  ending  a.d.  1553; 
and  the  second,  headed  by  Dubritius,  as  "  the  first  archbishop  of 

*  Compare  pp.  322-325,  with  note,  p.  36L 
t  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  359- 


368 

Llandaff,   and   containing  sixty-four  links,   ending  a.d.  1545,  the 
reader,  we  repeat,  is  told,  that  thus  he  is  "brought  down  to 

THE  REFORMATION, 

since  which  time,  the  English  succession  comes  through  Matthew 
Parker,  and  his  associates."* 

But  here,  at  the  very  outset,  the  reader  finds  Mr.  C.  flounder- 
ing upon  another  "  snag."  Having  told  him,  page  291,  that  "the 
archbishops  of  Canterbury,  through  whom  the  succession  of  the 
English  bishops  is  usually  traced,  received  their  succession,  not^ 
as  is  often  said,  from  Rome,  but  from  Aries,  Augustine,  the  first 
Saxon  bishop,  as  well  as  the  first  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  hav- 
ing been  consecrated  at  Aries, "f  etc.,  he  now  informs  him,  that 
"  the  early  bishops  of  these  dioceses,"  that  is,  those  of  Caerleon 
vel  Meneva  vel  St.  Davids.^  and  Llandaff,  who  could  trace  their 
succession  "to  Jerusahm^Xo  Ro?-rE,  and  to  Ephesus,^^  "  Avere  instru- 
mental to  a  very  great  extent  in  preaching  Christianity  to  the  Sax- 
ons, in  the  west  and  north  of  England.":}: 

Here  then  we  have  the  "  early"  British  bishops  working  hand 
in  hand  with  those  of  Rome,  in  the  promotion  of  a  common  cause  1 
But,  was  this  so  ?  Why,  then,  in  proof  of  the  absolute  indepen- 
dence of  the  British  churches  of  that  of  Eome,  has  Mr.  C.  remijided 
us  that,  upon  Augustine's  arrival  at  Kent,  "Ae  oived  sidimission  to 
the  metropolitan  of  Britcdn^''  Avhose  "  seat"  at  that  very  time  was, 
not  at  Saxon  Kent,  but  at  "Kaerleon  ar  Wye,"  "Caerleon  upon 
Esk,"  in  Wales?- 

But,  no.  Indeed,  so  far  from  any  such  co-operation  existing  be- 
tween these  "  early"  British  bishops  and  those  of  Eome  as  above 
represented,  Bede's  account  of  the  matter  is  as  follows  :  At  the 
time  of  their  second  conference  with  Augustine,  a.d.  603,  to  his 
demands — "if  you  will  comply  with  me  in  these  three  points,  viz., 
to  Iceep  Easter  at  the  due  time ;  to  administer  haptism-,  hy  ivhich  ive 
are  again  horn  to  God,''''  [baptismal  regeneration,]  according  to  the 
custom  of  the  holy  Roman  Apostolic  Church,  and,  jointly  icith  vs,  to 
preach  the  word  of  God  to  the  English  nation,  we  icill  tolerate  all  the 
other  things  you  do,  though  contrary  to  our  customs  ;"  they  answered : 
"  We  will  do  none  of  these  things,  nor  receive  him  [the  pope] 
as  our  aechbishop  ;"  to  which  they  added,  "  we  are  under  the 
government  of  the  bishop  of  Caerleori  upon  Wishe,  who,  under  God, 
is  to  oversee  us,  to  cause  us  to  walk  in  the  way  of  the  Lord."§ 
And  this  determination,  that  is,  that  they  would  not  unite  with 
the  Romish  missionary  Augustine,  and  his  Saxon  converts  |  in 
preaching  to  the  English  nation,  these  "  early"  British  bishops, 
Bede  informs  us,  persevered  in  till  some  time  after  a.d.  731,  when 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  pp.  326-329.  f  lb.,  p.  291.  |  lb.,  p.  329. 

§  Bede,  Book  II.,  c.  2.     See  also  the  Primitive  Church,  p.  361. 
II  See  p.  —.  . 


369 

he  concluded  his  history: — "it  being,"  says  he,  "  to  this  day^''  the 
custom  of  the  Britons  not  to  pay  any  respect  to  the  (ROMAN)  faith 
and  religion  of  the  English^  nor  to  correspond  loith  them  any  more 
than  ivith  p)agans'^  /* 

The  couchisions,  therefore,  warranted  by  the  facts  above  exhib- 
ited^Mr.  C.  himself  being  judge — are  : 

1.  That  while  we  admit  the  very  early  introduction  of  Chris- 
tianity into  ancient  Britain,  yet  that,  from  the  admitted  loss  to  the 
Churcli  of  the  early  records  of  those  times,  and  the  consequent  ab- 
sence of  a  claim  to  authenticity  of  those  of  more  recent  date,  the 
alleged  prelatical  character  of  the  ministry  of  that  Church  is 
wholly  unauthorized  and  fabulous. 

2.  That  the  ancient  British  Church  and  its  ministry,  having 
been  driven,  during  the  Saxon  invasion,  from  North  Brittany  into 
France  and  Wales,  as  she  ever  had  been,  so  she  continued  to  be, 
a  body  entirely  separate  and  distinct  from,  and  independent  of  the 
Anglo-Saxon  or  English  Church,  (which,  Mr.  Chapin  informs  us, 
was  formed  out  of  those  who  were  "  converted  by  missionaries 
from  Rome,"f  under  Augustine,)  till  subjected  to  her  power,  a 
short  time  after  a.d.  731,  when  "the  Welsh  as  well  as  the  English 
became  entirely  Romanists. ":|: 

3.  That,  as  there  is  no  historical  evidence  that  the  Anglo-Saxon 
Church,  founded  by  the  Romish  missionary  Augustine,  A.D.  596, 
under  the  auspices  of  Gregory  I.  and  King  Ethelbert  of  Kent, 
formed  cmy  '■'■portion  o/""  the  ancient  British  Church,  so  it  is  as 
much  at  variance  with  reason  as  it  is  contrary  to  fact,  to  suppose 
that  that  Church  could  have  "  practically  denied  from  the  very 
outset,  the  supremacy  of  the  pope^  That  she  did  not,  that  she  could 
not  so  have  done,  we  shall  once  more  refer  the  reader  to  Mr.  C. 
himself,  for  the  most  ample  proof. 

First,  then.  Speaking  of  the  period  when  Theonas  and  Thadioc 
were  driven  by  the  Saxons  into  France  and  Wales,  (a.d.  587)  he 
says,  "  that  from  that  time  there  was  hut  one  British  archdiocese, 
that  of  Caerleony\ 

Then,  second.  He  allows  that,  from  that  time,  till  about  a.d. 
787,  the  "British  Church"  was  held  to  be  '■Ulistinct  from  the  Sax- 
on-English."^ Yes,  indulgent  reader,  and  that,  as  we  have  shown, 
after  all  his  labored  endeavors  to  produce  the  conviction,  that  they 
were  identical.  For  in  no  other  way  can  he,  or  any  one  else,  fur- 
nish any  the  least  pretext,  that  the  Anglo-English  Ghnrch  ivas  ever, 
for  one  hour,  from  the  time  of  Augustine,  independent  of  the  Church  of 
Home. 

Therefore,  third.  The  protests  made  against  the  pope's  suprem- 
acy during  this  interval  of  about  two  hundred  years,  proceeded, 

♦  Bede,  Book  II,,  c.  20. 
t  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  371. 

X  Johnson's  Clergyman's  Vade  Mecum,  Vol.  I.,  p.  34,  fourth  edition.     1715. 
4  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  368.  II  lb.,  p.  373. 

24 


870 

not  from  the  Anglo-English,  but  from  the  old  Bntish  churches. 
All  along,  the  Komish  power  had  been  culminating  towards  the 
highest  altitude  of  pontifical  supremacy  and  dominion.  About 
midway  of  this  period,  (a.d.  709,)  Mr.  C.  informs  us  that,  "through 
the  conjoined  elforts  of  Egwin,  Constantine,  and  Birthwald,  sixty- 
five  tracts  of  country  ivere  ceded  to  the  pope  forever^  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  monasteries,"  and  thus,  "to  introduce  into  the  heart 
of  England,  an  army  of  monks,  who  were  entieely  independent 
of  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  realm."* 

Aye,  reader,  onlv  to  think.  And  all  this,  in  that  very  England, 
where  "  the  Ckurcti'  has  "  EVER  BEEN  legally  and  canonicalh) 
independent  of,  the  pope.f 

No.  Though,  as  we  have  said,  from  the  period  of  the  subjuga- 
tion of  the  old  British  bishops  early  in  the  ninth  century  to  the 
dominion  of  the  Romau  Anglo-English  Church,  there  were  from 
time  to  time  indications  of  a  jealousy  of  the  rising  power  of  the 
pope,  and  of  a  restless  endurance  of  his  unhallowed  sway ;  yet, 
this  jealousy,  this  restlessness,  it  is  to  be  particularly  borne  in 
mind,  were  the  fruits  of  a  foreign  growth.  What  of  merit  the 
Anglo-English  Church  claims  in  these  premises,  it  is  the  height  of 
disingenuousness  in  her  to  seize  as  hers  by  inherent  right.  So  far 
from  it, — we  again  quote  Mr.  C, — as,  "  subsequent  to  a.d.  787,  we 
hear  less  of  the  British  Church  as  distinct  from  the  Saxon- 
English  ;":{:  So,  on  the  other  hand,  we  discover,  _^/br  the  first  time^ 
no  indications  of  a  consciousness  within  the  bosom  of  the  English 
hierarchy,  of  a  loss  to  Christendom  of  its  alleged  primitive  inde- 
pendence. No,  no.  The  Anglo-English  Church  should  not  plume 
herself  upon  the  merits  of  an  uninterrupted  independence  of  the 
Romish  See.  This,  as  what  she  so  much  boasts  of,  is  a  hor rowed 
glory.  We  repeat.  As  a  church,  it  never  was  hers.  And,  so  far 
as  it  exhibited  itself  within  the  pale  of  the  Anglo-English  branch 
of  the  Holy  Catholic  Mother  by  these  old  British  captives,  or  by 
others,  who,  having  imbibed  their  spirit,  groaned  under  the  yoke 
of  the  oppressor,  yet,  how  unavailing.  Yes,  at  this  time, 
THE  TKiuMPn  OF  lioME  WAS  COMPLETE.  And,  who  that  has 
any  regard  for  his  reputation  as  an  accurate  and  honest  ecclesiasti- 
cal historian,  will  venture  to  deny  that,  down  to  the  time  of  Henry 
VIII.,  that  triumph,  (if  we  except  those  antagonistic  quakings  in 
England  created  hj  the  continental  reformers,)  had  not  maintained 
itself  undisturbed  and  universal. 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  372.  f  lb.,  p.  359.  \  lb.,  p.  373. 


871  <  ^ 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  TKUE  CHAKACTER  OF  THE  ENGLISH  CHUECH,  VIEWED  IN  THE  ASPECT 
OF  HER  ORIGIN,  AND  OF  HER  ACTS  AS  "  THE  PROTESTANT  CHURCH  OF 
ENGLAND  AS  BY  LAW  ESTABLISHED,"       HER  PROSPECTS,  ETC. 

SECTION    I. 

Proof,  that  the  Anglo-English  Church,,  bet  ween  Augustine  and  Henry  VIII.,  was  not 
independent  of  Ronae.— The  old  British  bishops,  the  only  protesters  against  the 
usurpations  of  Augustine. — Loegria. — The  Cymri. — Conversion  of  the  former  by 
Augustine. — Formed  the  basis  of  the  Anglo-English  Hierarchy. — A  solemn  pro- 
test against  Mr.  C.'s  alleged  independence  of  the  Anglican  Church  and  Succession, 
of  that  of  the  Romish  See. 

With  the  facts,  therefore,  as  set  forth  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter, in  view,  we  affirm,  and  shall  maintain,  the  following  propo- 
sitions, to  wit: 

I. — That  the  Anglo-Saxon  or  English  Church,  as  the  natural 
born  offspring  of  the  Roman  See  under  Augustine  the  missionary 
of  Gregory  I.,  and  who  is  acknowledgedly  "  the  first  Saxon  bishop," 
and  "  the  first  archbishop  of  Canterbury,"  through  whose  archi- 
episcopate,  with  that  of  York,  "the  English  succession"  is  declared 
to  be  derived,  at  no  period^  up  to  the  time-  of  tfte  Anglican  Re- 
foK'mation  under  Henry  VIIL^  loas  independent  of  that  See. 

II.  That  the  Anglican  Reformation,  commenced  hj  that  monarch 
and  perfected  by  his  successors,  Edward  and  Elizabeth,  was  an  act 
of  rapacity  and  schism  ayainst  that  See.     And, 

III.— That  consistency  and  duty  leave  to  the  AngHcan  Church 
and  her  American  daughter  but  one  of  two  alternatives, — either,  a 
submissive  return  to  the  liomish  See;  or^  a  full,  total,  and  absolute  (dj- 
jaration  of,  the  principle  upon  ivhich  it  is  founded,  namely:  a  semi- 
NALLY  DERIVED  SACERDOTAL  PRELACY, — and  a  Tctum  to  tbc  Prcsby- 
terial  platform  of  ministerial  parity  adopted  by  the  first  English 
reformers. 

We  shall  now  take  up  these  several  propositions  s&naiim,  and 
show, 


372 

I. — That,  unless,  upon  Augustine's  appearance  among  tlie  An- 
glo-English in  Kent  and  Essex,  it  can  be  proved  that  there  were 
bishops  there  other  than  the  archbishop  of  Cambria  or  Wales  and 
the  seven  bishops  whom  that  liomish  missionary  on  the  banks  of 
the  Severn  labored  in  vain  to  subdue  to  the  obedience  of  Home ; 
and  also  that  they,  equally  with  the  exiled  bishops,  kesistkd  the 
overtures  of  Gregory's  vassal  to  surrender  that  ecclesiastical  inde- 
pendence Avhich  the  Rev.  Mr.  Chapin  and  others  claim  that  they 
derived  from  the  old  British  Church  ;  it  will  follow,  that  any  such 
claim  to  independence  of  the  See  of  Rome  on  the  part  of  the  An- 
glo-English Churchy  rests  on  mere  ass^tmjytion.  When,  then,  we 
reflect,  that  upon  this  single  point,  depends  the  entire  fate — as  in- 
volving the  question  of  its  truth  or  falsehood — of  the  principle, 
and  with  it  the  gigantic  ecclesiastical  superstructure  erected  there- 
on, of  the  Anglican  and  American  system  of  prelacy,  we  must 
venture  upon  a  little  further  tax  of  the  reader's  indulgence  in  re- 
lation to  it. 

A  glance  at  the  condition  of  th6  Anglo-English  nation  at  the 
period  of  which  we  now  speak,  will  not  be  out  of  place.  We  re- 
mark then,  that,  upon  the  invasion  of  the  Island,  whether  by  the 
Scots,  Picts,  Jutes,  Angles,  or  Saxons,  the  total  expulsion  of  the 
British  tribes  by  no  means  followed  as  a  necessary  result  of  their 
political  subjugation.  Still,  as  we  have  seen,  they  Avere  often  scat- 
tered. And,  of  those  who  continued  in  possession  of  their  native 
soil,  they  nevertheless  remained  unmingled  with  the  stranger.  It 
hence  came  to  pass,  that  very  many  of  the  territories  ruled  by  the 
Anglo-Saxons  had  thus  a  double  aspect :  Anglo-Saxon,  if  you 
viewed  them  as  a  State  ;  British,  if  you  viewed  the pojjulation  by 
which  they  were  filled.  It  is  here  also  to  be  particularl}'-  borne' in 
mind,  that  the  Brotwaldas  are  to  be  considered  as  the  successors 
of  the  Roman  emperors,  or  tyrants.  Yea,  more.  That  when  and 
so  soon  as  the  royal  authority  became  developed  among  any  of  the 
barbarians  who  settled  on  Roman  ground,  all  their  kings  took 
upon  themselves,  as  far  as  they  could,  to  govern  according  to  the 
spirit  of  the  Roman p)olicy^  and  agreeably  to  the  maxims  prevail- 
ing at  the  decline  of  the  empire,  and  declared  in  the  imperial  law. 
It  hence  followed,  that  the  whole  body  of  the  people  were  subject- 
ed to  the  supremacy  of  a  ,S(?7Mi-Romish  Anglo-Saxon  scepter.  They 
bent  before  the  Anglo-Saxon  throne,  and  rendered  tribute  to  the 
Anglo-Saxon  kings. 

Thus  did  the  dominion  of  the  old  Britons  pass  away  :  thus  were 
the  British  people  either  banished  from  their  own  country,  or  re- 
duced into  vassalage.  And  the  Island,  from  the  Pictish  Sea  (the 
Frith  of  Forth)  to  the  shore  of  the  channel,  became  the  inheritance 
of  the  Anglo-Saxo7is,  who  caused  their  own  language,  and  their 
own  customs  and  laws,  to  become  paramount  in  Britain,  which 
dominancy  they  held,  down  to  the  time  of  the  Norman  conquest, 
A.a  1066. 


373 

Retracing  our  steps  back  however  to  about  the  time  of  Augus- 
tine, we  find  that,  while  the  South  Britons  of  Loegria  yielded 
almost  without  resistance  to  their  invaders,  the  old  Cymri,  who 
were  the  noblest  of  the  Britons,  who  held  the  Saxons  in  utter  de- 
testation, and  who  refused  to  conform  either  to  their  customs  or 
their  laws,  maintained  themselves  in  Cambria,  or  Wales,  against 
every  attempt  to  subdue  them. 

Thither,  then,  it  was,  as  we  have  stated,  that  those  old  British 
bishops,  Theonas  and  Thadioc,  together  with  their  persecuted 
flocks,  prior  to  the  mission  of  Augustine^  fled  from  the  hand  of 
their  Saxon  oppressors. 

On  the  other  hand,  Augustine's  labors  among  the  Anglo-English, 
besides  being  crowned  at  an  early  period  with  the  conversion  of 
Ethelbert,  (a  monarch  of  great  power  and  ability,  and  who  had 
compelled  the  other  sovereigns  of  the  island,  whether  Britons  or 
Anglo-Saxons,  to  acknowledge  as  their  superior,)  shared  also  the 
advantages  of  his  zealous  co-operation.  Nor  did  the  Gregorian 
missionary  find  the  Loegria  Britons,  as  above,  any  the  less  pliant 
to  his  Romanizing  influences,  than  in  the  case  of  their  submission 
to  their  Saxon  invaders. 

It  turns  oat,  then,  that  those  portions  of  the  Britons  who  became 
thus  Saxo:n'ized  by  their  Qemi-jjolitico -^omx&h.  invaders,  became  at 
the  same  time  Romanized  by  ih.&u:  jpopish  missionary  and  his  forty 
monks ! 

Now,  let  Mr.  C,  or  any  other  advocate  of  Prelacy,  find,  if  he 
can,  one  single  anti-Romish  bishop  in  Kent,  or  Essex,  whp,  after 
the  example  of  the  old  British  bishops  in  Cambria  or  Wales,  de- 
nounced the  popish  missionary  as  a  usurper  of  their^  original  rights 
as  independent  of  the  jMpal  see.  No.  So  far  from  it,  we  athrm 
that  the  whole  Anglo- English  population  became  Romanized.  It 
avails  nothing  to  remind  us  of  the  fact,  that  Augustine,  on  his  ar- 
rival in  Kent,  found  a  bishop  (Luidhard)  in  the  family  of  Ethel- 
bert, as  the  guardian  of  the  faith  of  his  Christian  wife  I3erta.  Let 
it  here  but  be  borne  in  mind,  that  Augustine  now  filled  the  place 
of  "  first  Saxon  bishop,"  and  "  the  first  archbishop  of  Canterbury," 
through  which  the  English  Succession  is  declared  to  flow.  Why, 
the  very  first  Anglo-English  bishoprics  of  those  times,  according 
to  Mr.  Chapin's  own  chronology,  etc.,  were  all  Romish.  The 
first  seven  archbishops  of  Canterbury  were  consecrated  either  by 
Augustine  himself  or  by  Romish  Legates.  The  first  archbishopric 
under  the  Romish  See  was  that  of  London^  which  had  been  vacat- 
ed by  the  flight  of  Theonas  and  Thadioc  a.d.  587  into  Wales. 
Mellitus,  appointed  to  that  bishopric  by  Ethelbert,*  was  consecrat- 
ed by  Augustine,  A.D.  604,  and  was  translated  to  Canterbury  a.d. 
619.  During  the  lifetime  of  Augustine,  the  Anglo-Saxons  to  the 
north  of  the  Humber  remained  pagan,  till  under  Edwin  the  suc- 
cessor of  Ethelbert  and  his  son-in-law,  who  permitted  Paulinus,  who 

*  Palgrave's  History  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  p.  G2. 


374 

had  been  sent  thither  by  Justus  tlie  4th  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, to  enter  his  dominions,  about  a.d.  625.*  But  here  again, 
all  was  Roman.  Justus,  the  consecrator  of  Paulinus,  had  himself 
been  consecrated  by  Augustine. 

We  again  therefore  enter  our  most  solemn  protest  against  Mr. 
C.'s  alleged  independence  of  the  English  Church  and  the  English 
succession,  to  that  of  the  Romish  See.  His  quotations  from  liede, 
in  proof  that  there  were  seven  bishops  present  at  the  conference 
with  Augustine,  and  from  a  very  ancient  author  who  computes  the 
number  at  twenty-five,  with  three  archbishops, f  taken  in  the  con- 
nection in  which  they  stand,  compel  us,  though  reluctantly,  to 
view  the  act  as  a  total  sacrifice  of  the  honesty  of  the  historian  to 
an  obstinate  zeal  in  the  support  of  a  known  indefensible  cause. 
We  have  shown  conclusively,:}:  that  there  was  no  ecclesiastical  con- 
nection between  these  "  seven"  old  British  bishops  and  those  of  the 
Anglo-English  Church,  till,  early  in  the  ninth  century,  they  were 
subdued  to  the  supremacy  of  the  Romish  See,  and  became  thence- 
forward incorporated  with  it  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  "  one  Holy 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Mother  Church."  The  reader  will  pardon 
the  expression,  but  it  is  all  gammon  to  refer  us  to  the  occasional 
protests  and  acts  of  resistance  of  the  English  bishops,  Idngs,  and 
parliaments,  against  the  enormous  exactions  of  papal  avarice  upon 
the  realm.  That  these  very  protests,  etc.,  were  but  the  evidence 
of  the  most  ignominious  vassalage  of  these  very  bishops,  kings, 
and  parliaments  to  the  popedom,  from  the  time  of  Augustine  to 
Henry  VIII.,  may  be  seen  from  the  following  (as  one  out  of  many 
similar  incidents),  which  occurred  about  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth 
century.  Robert,  Bishop  of  Lincoln,  having  ascertained  that 
Pope  Innocent  IV.  had  actually  abstracted  from  the  kingdom  more 
than  70,000  marks, — which  sum  amounted  to  more  than  two-thirds 
of  the  king's  own  revenue, — ventured  to  address  a  letter  of  remon- 
strance to  his  holiness,  on  the  ground  not  only  of  its  injustice,  but 
of  its  demoralizing  tendency  on  the  pastoral  office  and  charge. 
And  Mr.  C.  refers  us  to  several  statutes  of  Edward  III.,  a.  d. 
1351,  3,  4,  and  6,  "  making  it  criminal  to  carry  the  contributions 
called  "  Peter-pence,"  etc.,  "  out  of  the  kingdom,"§  which  inci- 
dents Mr.  C.  adduces  as  proof  of  the  independence  of  the  English 
,  Church  to  the  See  of  Rome  ! 

But,  of  the  legitimacy  of  this  inference  we  will  leave  the  reader 
to  judge,  Avhen  he  shall  have  been  informed  of  Robert's  style  of 
address  to  his  holiness  in  the  above  letter  of  remonsti'ancc,  and  of 
the  pope's  reply :  "  Your  wisdom,"  says  he,  "  will  know  that  / 
ohey  the  mandates  of  the  apostolical  See  with  filial  affection  and 
devoted  reverence,  and  Avith  zeal  for  your  paternal  authority,  etc., 
which  neither  are  nor  can  be  any  other  than  the  doctrine  of  the 

*  Palgrave's  History  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  p.  63. 

t  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  362.         \  See  Chap.  VI.,  Sects.  IV.,  V.,  VI. 

S  The  Prinnitive  Church,  pp.  377,  378,  compareJ  with  pp.  371-381. 


375 

apostles,  and  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     The  pope,  in  the  hierarchy 
of  the  Church,  is  the  vicar  of  Ghrist,^^  etc. 

On  the  other  hand,  when  Eobert's  letter  reached  the  pope, 
"  unable  to  restrain  his  wrath  and  indignation,  he,  with  a  terrible 
countenance  and  haughty  mien,  exclaimed,  '  Who  is  this  old, 
crazed,  blind  fool,  who  dares,  with  such  temerity,  to  judge  our 
actions?  Bj  Peter  and  Paul,  were  it  not  for  our  inbred  gene- 
rosity, I  would  hurl  such  confusion  upon  him,  that  his  folly  and 
punishment  should  astonish  the  world.  What !  Is  not  the  King 
of  England  our  vassal?  Yea,  more,  even  our  bond  slave?  And 
cannot  we,  by  a  sovereign  nod,  imprison  him,  and  bind  him  in  his 
ignominy  ?'  "* 

Here,  then,  is  English  Church  independence,  with  a  vengeance  ! 

In  conclusion,  therefore,  on  this  subject,  we  refer  the  reader  to 
pages  221-223  of  this  Treatise  for  a  summary  of  our  evidence  of. 
the  universality  of  the  papal  power,  spiritual  and  temporal,  civil 
and  ecclesiastical,  in  England,  as  elsewhere,  down  to  the  time  of 
Henry  VIII. 


SECTIOIS-  n. 

Proof  of  the  schismatical  character  of  the  English  Reformation  under  Henry  VIII,, 
Edward  VI.,  and  Elizabeth. — Difference  between  the  cardinal  principles  of  the 
English  and  of  the  Continental  Reformations,  as  to  their  practical  results,  etc. — 
The  Continent  the  seat  of  the  Protestant  Reformation — Claude,  Bishop  of  Turin, 
A.  D.  831-840. — The  Waklenses. — (See  also  Appendix.)  — Persecution  of. — Popes. — 
Alexander  III.,  Lucius  II.,  Clement  III.,  Celestine  III.,  Innocent  III.,  Honorius 
III.,  Gregory  IX.,  Innocent  IV.,  Alexander  IV.,  a.  d.  1159-1199. — Count  Raymond 
of  Toulouse,  A.  D.  1208. — About  70,000  massacred. — Reformation  still  spreads. — 
Present  Waldenses  in  the  valleys  of  Pit^dmont — John  Milicz.  a.  d.  1360-1367. — 
Huss,  A.  D.  1400. — Waldenses  in  England. — Jerome  of  Prague,  do.,  a.  d.  1402. — 
Wickliffe,  the  English  Reformer. — Romanism  again  dominant  till  a.  d.  1521. — 
Henry  VIII.  assumes  the  supremacy. 

It  hence  follows, 

II.  That  the  Anglican  Eeformation,  commenced  by  Henry 
VIII.,  and  perfected  by  his  successors,  Edward  VI.  and  lilizabeth, 
was  an  act  of  schism  against  that  See.  And,  being  created  solely  by 
acts  of  parliannent,  is  a  human  institution. 

It  here  becomes  fundamental  to  a  proper  understanding  of  this 
matter,  that  we  bring  to  light  those  cardinal  in^inciples,  which 
formed  the  basis  of  the  AngUcan  Reformation,  taken  as  a  whole, 
as  contradistinguished  from  those  on  which  were  based  the  Conti- 

*  Archdeacon  Mason's  account  of  this  transaction,  as  taken  from  that  of  Matt. 
Paris.  Mason,  Lib.  4,  cap.  14,  gives  a  similar  account  of  the  reigns  of  thirteen  of  these 
English  kings,  who  thus  fell  victims  to  the  rapacity  of  the  popes. 


376 

nental  Reformation.     These,  we  shall  now  proceed  to  show,  were 
essentially  different,  both  in  their  character  and  in  their  results. 

Now,  agreeably  to  the  current  nomenclature  of  the  parties 
respectively  concerned  in  these  two  great  religious  revolutions, — 
both  claiming  to  be  Protestant, — the  principles  whence  they 
originated  and  on  which  they  were  professedly  conducted  were,  a 
protesting  against,  and  a  casting  off,  of  the  abominations  of  that 
''  INFINITE  SUPERSTITION,  THE  PAPACY,"  which,  from 
the  seed  previously  sown,  from  early  in  the  fourth  to  the  opening 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  had  proudly  trampled  on  thrones  and 
scepters,  causing  "  the  kings  of  the  earth  to  drink  "  to  the  very 
dregs  "  of  the  cup  of  the  wine  of  her  fornications,"'  and,  "  mak- 
ing war  with  the  saints,"  had  so  worn  them  out,^  as  scarcely  to 
leave  for  them  a  name  and  a  place  in  the  earth. 

But,  clearly,  these  protesting  principles,  to  be  consistent,  must 
necessarily  regard  the  system  protested  against  as  a  whole.  But, 
inasmuch  as  the  popedom  was  to  that  system  what  a  foundation  is 
to  the  siijDerstructure,  a  system,  as  we  have  shown,  built  on  tra- 
dition as  at  least  equal  with,  if  not  superior  to.  Holy  Scripture, 
the  true  Protestant  Reformation  principle  struck  at  this  as  the 
source  of  all  its  concomitant  abominations.  The  doctrines,  eccle- 
siastical orders,  and  ordinances  and  rites  of  New  Testament  Chris- 
tianity, by  the  arch  devices  of  the  jDopedom,  had  been  all  moulded 
into  such  forms  as  its  developments  rendered  indispensable  to  the 
support  of  its  high  claims  of  primacy,  infallibility,  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  political  supremacy. 

If,  then,  the  evidence  of  lust  for  "  the  pre-eminence"  exhibited 
in  the  conduct  of  John  of  Constantinople,  the  rival  of  Gregory  I., 
in  assuming  the  title  of  "  universal  bishop,"  led  the  latter  to  con- 
temn such  an  assumption  as  a  mark  of  the  predicted  "  Man  of 
sin"  of  Paul,  and  the  "  Antichrist"  of  John ;  what  marvel,  that 
there  were,  during  the  entire  period  of  the  subsequent  reign  of 
papal  darkness  and  corruption,  a  "  seed''''  preserved,  (like  the  im- 
perishable germ  of  our  mortal  resuscitation,^)  to  form  the  nucleus 
of  the  Church's  resurrection  from  the  grave  of  poperj^  ? 

And,  thus  it  was.  The  Pauline  prophecy  of  that  apostasy  from 
"  the  faith"  first  "delivered  to  the  saints"*  by  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles, as  the  precursor  of  the  advent  of  the  Antichrist  that  was  to 
come,  attracted  to  it,  both  on  the  continent  and  in  England,  the 
evangelic  eye  of  faith,  as  to  "a  light  which  shineth  in  a  dark 
place."* 

Nor  are  we  here  to  overlook  the  fact,  that  this  "  light"  ^ir^^  hrolce 
in  upon  the  darkness  of  popery^  on  the  continknt.  Not  that  Ave 
mean  to  affirm  that  there  were  none  in  England,  who,  between 

(I)  Rev.  17  :  2.     (2)  Dan.  7  :  21,  25,  (3)  See  1  Cor.  15  :  38.     (4)  Jude  3. 

*  See  Appendix  A,  for  proofs  drawn  from  the  known  characteristics  of  popery  in 
nght  particulars,  that  it  constitutes  the  antichristian  power  referred  to  in  the  above 
prophecies. 


377 

A.D.  1000  and  1500,  did  not  offer  stern  opposition  to  the  usurpa- 
tions, rapacity,  and  corruptions  of  the  popedom.  Such  contests 
were  both  frequent  and  violent.  They  were  also  common  alike  to 
France,  Sicily  and  other  kingdoms.  But  it  was  on  the  continent 
where  first  commenced  the  mighty  conflict  between  the  Protestant 
Evangelic  reformation  principle,  and  the  papal  Antichrist.  In  this 
warfare,  Claude,  bishop  of  Turin,  stands  foremost.  Between  a.d. 
831-84:0,  he  presented  a  bold  front  in  his  opposition 'to  anti- 
christian  Rome,  for  which  Barronius  has  adorned  him  with  the 
envious  title  of  "impious,  an  opposer  of  all  goodness,"  etc.  He  is 
held,  and  justl}^  too,  as  having  first  rallied  and  concentrated  that 
heroic  and  suffering  "  army"*  of  anti-Romish  Protestants,  known 
by  the  name  of  the  Waldenses.* 

The  head  and  front  of  their  offending  was,  "  that  they  accused 
the  popes  of  avarice,  tyranny,  and  ambition ;  the  cardinals  and 
clergy  of  vice,  corruption  and  dissolute  manners  ;  and  the  Romish 
Church  of  various  errors,  in  holding  traditions,  not  apostolical,  but 
antichristian." 

The  bitterest  persecutions  followed.  Between  a.d.  1159  and 
1199,  the  popes,  Alexander  III.,  Lucius  II.,  Clement  III.,  and 
Celestine  III.,  large  numbers  of  them  were  subjected  to  excommu- 
nication and  other  indignities.  These  sufferings,  however,  were 
tender  mercies,  compared  with  those  inflicted  on  them  under  the 
pontificate  of  Innocent  III.,  whose  vigilant  jealousy  was  roused 
by  the  imchecked  and  surprising  progress  of  the  scriptural  doc- 
trines of  these  Protestant  reformers.  The  fundamental  principle 
on  which  they  conducted  their  reformation,  as  intimated  above, 
was,  that  the  Bihle  is  its  own  interpreter^  and  the  only  infallible  source 
of  Christian  hriowledge,  and  that  the  pojoedom  ivas  the  antichrist  pre- 
dicted by  Paul  and  John.  The  language  of  Innocent  III.  and  his 
successors,  Honorius  III.,  Gregory  IX.,  Innocent  IV.,  and  Alexan- 
der IV.,  was,  that  "unless  this  error  was  repressed  by  the  swords 
of  the  faithful,  in  a  short  time  it  would  corrupt  all  Europe."  If 
we  let  these  "  Waldenses^^  alone,  "  all  men  will  believe  on  them, 
and  they  will  come  and  take  away"  all  the  power,  spiritual  and 
temporal,  of  our  long-labored-for  and  dearly -bought  triple  crown! 

The  Waldenses  were  at  this  time  in  the  enjoyment  of  quietude 
in  the  territories,  and  under  the  protection  of  Raymond,  Count  of 
Toulouse.  Troublous  times,  liowever,  are  at  hand.  Innocent  III., 
failing  in  his  efforts  to  seduce  them  from  the  simplicity  of  the  truth 
by  the  sophistry  of  his  twelve  Cisterian  abbots,  who,  with  Didacus, 
bisrliop  of  Osma,  and  his  companion  Dominic,  the  first  inquisitor, 
are  sent  to  debate  with  them  the  points  in  dispute,  now  resolves 
(a.d.  1208)  to  unsheath  the  sword  against  them.  The  following 
year,  sixty  or  seventy  thousand  of  them  were  massacred  ;.  and 
finally,  through  the  treachery  of  the  vacillating  Count  Raymond — 

(1)  Rev.  19  :  19  ;  7  :  14. 
*  See  Appendix.    D,  The  WaMenses. 


378 

after  having  headed  an  army  in  their  defense  of  a  hundred  thou- 
sand men — who  had  been  coerced  into  an  oath  of  obedience  to  the 
pontiff,  those  of  them  who  escaped  death,  perpetual  imprisonment, 
banishment,  etc.,  were  dispersed  abroad  Hke  sheep  having  no 
shepherd.  But,  hke  the  apostles  when  driven  from  Jerusalem,  so 
these  Waldensean  I'rotestants.  Fearless  alike  of  lire  and  sword, 
they  disseminated  their  reformation  doctrines  in  all  countries 
whither  they  were  scattered.  France,  the  Netherlands,  Germany, 
Italy,  Flanders,  Picardy,  Dalmatia,  Bulgaria,  Austria,  Illyiicum 
and  England.,  furnished  them  with  temporary  and  precarious  re- 
treats ;  but,  as  a  standing  monument  of  the  truth  and  faithfulness- 
of  God,  from  this  period  down  to  the  present  day,  the  utmost  fury 
of  th«ir  Romish  persecutors  has  failed  wholly  to  exterminate 
them.  Some  twenty  thousand  of  them  are  still  to  be  found  in 
their  old  "  mountain  home,"  in  the  valleys  of  Piedmont!  A  let- 
ter, from  the  "Table,"  or  "commission  of  the  Synod,"*  of  these 
martyr  people,  bearing  date  September  12,  1849,  written  at  La- 
Tour,  their  principal  city,  and  addressed  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Baird, 
soliciting  aid  from  their  American  brethren,  to  enable  them  to 
erect  a  church  edifice,  school-house,  etc.,  at  Turin,  is  evidence  of 
this. 

To  return,  however,  to  the  thread  of  our  narrative.  From  the 
Waldenses,  in  process  of  time,  emanated  the  Bohemians.,  com- 
menced under  the  preaching  of  John  Milicz  of  Prague,  between 
A.D.  1360-1367,  and  carried  on  under  the  auspices  of  Huss,  confes- 
sor to  the  Queen  of  Bohemia,  a.d.  1400,  whence  the  Hussites.  In 
A.D.  1415,  Huss,  for  refusing  to  recant  his  alleged  errors  as  re- 
quired by  the  Council  of  Constance,  is  condemned  as  a  heretic,  de- 
graded, delivered  to  the  secular  arm,  and  burnt  ! 

But,  as  we  stated  above,  the  Waldenses,  at  their  dispersion  be- 
tween A.D.  1208  and  1254,  found,  in  part,  a  temporary  retreat  in 
England.  We  are  not  surprised,  therefore,  to  find,  as  the  result 
of  the  presence  of  such  "  lights"  amid  the  darkness  of  popery, 
there  should  have  arisen  in  that  horizon  a  kindred  spirit,  contem- 
porary with  a  Milicz  and  a  Huss.  While,  tlierefore,  the  reforma- 
tion was  advancing  on  the  continent,  Wickliffe  commenced  his 
exposure  of  the  abounding  corruptions  of  the  papacy  in  England. 
Meanwhile,  Jerome  of  Prague,  who  had  previously  labored  for  the 
conversion  of  the  remaining  pagans  of  Lithuania,  visits  England, 
but  returns  to  Prague  a.d.  1402,  and  commences  •dispensing  the 
same  doctrines  taught  by  the  English  reformer.  He  is  finally 
burnt,  A.D.  1416.  Wickliffe,  besides  denouncing  the  avarice  of 
ecclesiastics  in  a  treatise  entitled   "The  Last  Age  of  the  Church," 

*  This  '■  Synod"  meets  triennially.  But  they  appoint  a  commission,  or  committee  ad 
interim,  with  discretionary  powers,  composed  of  the  moderator,  assistant  moderator,  sec- 
retary, and  two  elders,  (laymen.)  The  "TaMi^"'  (so  called  from  meeting  around  a  ta- 
ble) ii^iires  greatly  in  the  history  of  these  wonderful  people.  There  is  something  very 
Prcshijlerian-li/ce  in  all  this!  See  American  and  Foreign  Christian  Union,  Vol.  I.,  Feb- 
ruary, No.  2,  et.  seq. 


379 

(a.d.  1356,)  declares  his  opinion  that  the  pope  is  Axticiirist,  (a.d. 
1374,)  establishes  a  society  of  pious  men  to  act  as  itinerant  preach- 
ers in  England,  (a.d.  1379,)  who  are  subsequently  known  by  the 
name  of  Lollards.  The  next  year  he  commences  his  English  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible.  He  was,  however,  finall}'  compelled  to  quit 
Oxford,  and  though,  upon  his  retirement  to  his  old  rectory  at  Lut- 
terworth, he  continued  to  write  against  the  abuses  and  corruptions 
of  Kome  until  his  death  in  a.d.  1384,  and  his  doctrines  continued 
to  spread  both  in  Bohemia,  and  for  a  time  in  England,  yet  the  lire 
of  persecution  against  his  followers  raged  with  the  greatest  fury  ; 
his  writings  were  burnt,  and  by  an  order  from  Pope  Martin  V.,  his 
bones  were  dug  up  and  burnt,  while  his  followers  were  held  as  the 
constant  laug;hino;-stock  of  the  adherents  of  the  Court  of  Korae,  all 
which  "  signs"  indicated,  that  these  reformatory  movements  were 
but  the  jyf'f^carsovs  of  a  greater  work  which  was  to  follow.  "  The 
set  time  to  favor  Zion"  had  not  yet  fully  come.  In  England^  the 
supremacy  of  the  popedom  and  the  reign  of  papal  superstition  was 
completely  dominant,  till  about  the  twentieth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Henry  VllL,  (1521.)  On  the  continent,  however,  the  year  1517  is 
sisnalized  bv  the  commencement  of  a  new  era. 


SECTION"   III. 
THE    LUTHERAN    REFORMATIOJST,    A.D.     1517. 

Founded  on  the  two  great  Protestant  principles  named  above. — Spreads  with  great  ra- 
pidity.— Results. — His  coadjutors,  Melancthon,  Zwingle,  Bullinger,  Carlstadt, 
(Ecolannpadius,  Erasmus,  Bucer,  P.  Martyr,  and  the  renowned  Calvin. 

This  year,  Luther,  having  been  educated  in  the  University  of 
Erfort,  A.D.  1505,  enters  the  monastery  there,  and,  by  the  study  of 
the  Bible  and  the  writings  of  Augustine,  on  his  return  from  a  visit 
to  Kome,  a.d.  1510,  disgusted  and  shocked  with  the  abominations 
of  Romanism  as  there  witnessed,  he  commences  his  career  as  a 
Reformer,  by  denouncing  the  sale  of  indulgences,  by  preaching 
the  doctrine  of  j  ustification  by  grace  through  faith,  and  by  deny- 
ing the  divine  right  of  the  pope's  supremacy,  etc.  Having  filled 
the  chair  of  professor  of  philosophy  in  the  IJniversity  of  Wittern- 
burg,  to  which  he  was  elected  a.d.  1508,  and  created  doctor  of  di- 
vinity, a.d.  1512,  the  ears  of  the  Vatican  were  made  to  tingle  with 
his  denunciations  of  her  corruptions.  The  work  of  reformation 
spread  with  great  rapidity.  The  principle  on  which  it  was  con- 
ducted may  be  gathered  from  the  facts  following,  viz.: — 

Zurich,  having  received  the  gospel  at  a  council  held  a.d.  1519, 
"  commanded  all  preachers  to  teach  the  pure  luord  according  to  Holy 
jScrijjiure,  and  to  refrain  froiji  human  additions.''''   And, 

In  his  Treatise  "  On  the  Babylonish  Captivity  of  the  Church," 


380 

Luther  denounces  the  papacy  as  the  kingdom  of  antkhristian  Buhylon^ 
and  the  Pope  as  the  Antichrist. 

Being  cited  to  appear  before  the  Diet  of  Worms,  Luther  refuses 
to  recant,  until  convinced  of  his  errors  bj  Scripture.  And,  escap- 
ing an  attempt  to  seize  his  person,  bj  repairing  to  Wartburg 
under  the  protection  of  Frederick,  he  begins  his  translation  of  the 
Bible  into  German,  and  matures  his  opinions  concerning  the  na- 
ture and  constitution  of  the  Church,  which  are  decidedly  anti-pre- 
latical.  And,  though  the  Duke  of  Savoy  raises  the  hand  of  perse- 
cution against  his  followers,  the  work  of  reformation  becomes 
wide-spread,  extending  its  hallowed  leaven  into  Denmark,  France, 
Transylvania,  Switzerland,  Sweden,  the  Netherlands,  Prussia, 
Scotland,  Hungary,  Poland,  Wurtemburg,  Pomerania,  Mecklen- 
burg, Augsburg,  Brandenburg,  Magdeburg,  Halle,  liatisbon,  Hil- 
derhim,  the  Palatinate  of  Bavaria,  Vienna,  Naples,  Geneva,  and 
even  into  Italy,  where  the  writings  of  the  reformers  are  translated 
and  circulated,  and  received  by  many.  Nor  should  we  omit  to 
notice,  in  this  connection,  one  particular  characteristic  of  tliis  re- 
former. We  allude  to  his  .unbending  o|)position  to  the  force  of 
arms,  in  its  support. 

Finally,  the  results  of  this  reformation,  antecedent  to  the  death 
of  Luther,  may  be  gathered,  1st,  from  the  solemn  protest  made  by 
the  evan2;elical  princes  against  the  edict  of  the  Diet  of  Worms,  a.d. 
1529,  whence  the  name  PROTESTANT;  2d,  the  publication 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession^  A.D.  1530 ;  3d,  the  Protestant  League  of 
Smalcald^  a.d.  1537  ;  4th,  the  publication  of  the  Helvetic  Confession, 
A.D.  1531;  5th,  the  Articles  of  Smalcald  drawn  up  by  Luther,  A.D. 
1537  ;  and  6th,  the  solemn  recognition  and  adoption  of  the  re- 
formation doctrine  at  Leipsic,  a.d.  1539. 

Between  a.d.  1517  and  the  death  of  Luther,  a.d.  1546,  the  short 
period  of  twenty-nine  years,  this  reformation  had  spread  over 
nearly  the  whole  of  Continental  Europe,  and  was  firmly  establish- 
ed in  many  of  the  principal  states  and  provinces,  particularly  in 
Switzerland,  Denmark,  Prussia,  Sweden,  Hungary  and  Transyl- 
vania, Basle,  Brunswick,  Geneva,  etc.,  etc. 

Then  too,  besides  princes  and  others,  Luther  found  many  able 
coadjutors  in  his  great  work  in  the  persons  of  Melancthon,  Zwin- 
gle,  Bullinger,  Carlstadt,  fficolampadius,  Erasmus,  Martin  Bucer, 
Peter  Martyr,  and  the  renowned  Calvin.  These,  one  and  all,  were 
distinguished  alike  for  their  profound  learning  and  eminent  piety ; 
and,  if  we  except  Erasmus,  for  a  bold,  unflinching,  indomitable, 
and  untiring  zeal  in  the  prosecution  of  their  great  work.  Erasmus, 
however,  though  a  promoter  of  classical,  biblical,  and  patristical 
learning,  yet  as  a  reformer,  he  aimed  at  the  adoption  of  a  via 
media  course  between  the  Pomanists  and  the  friends  of  Luther. 
Hence,  while  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony  (Frederick)  he  would  ap- 
plaud Luther's  intentions  as  good,  but  lament  his  want  of  modera- 
tion,— an   evidence  of  his  over-cautiousness  and    timidity — that 


381 

great  reformer  said  of  him,  that  he  could  point  out  error,  but 
would  not  teach  the  truth.  It  hence  came  to  pass,  that  he  was  ob- 
noxious to  both  parties.  The  Romanists  accused  him  of  a  secret 
opposition  to  the  papacy,  while  the  reformers  looked  upon  his 
neutrality  as  synonymous  with  cowardice. 

Calvix,  'a  native  of  JSToj^on  in  Picardy,  begins  in  a.d.  1532,  to 
distinguish  himself  as  a  reformer  in  Paris.  The  year  1535  wit- 
nessed the  publication  of  the  first  edition  of  his  "  Insiitutio  Eeli- 
gionvi  Chn'sdame,^^  which  work,  however,  was  not  completed  till 
1559.  Having  left  Geneva,  (at  which  place  he  settled  in  1536),  he 
is  again  recalled  in  1541,  where  he  establishes  a  presbytery,  and  a 
system  of  strict  ecclesiastical  discipline,  and  \\-hence  the  influence 
of  his  name  and .  writings  spreads  both  far  and  near.  To  him, 
more  than  to  a.ny  other  reformer,  are  the  continental  churches  in- 
debted for  their  safe  keeping  (during  the  sacramentarian  contro- 
versy) from  the  influence  of  the  Lutheran  dogma  of  consubstan- 
tiation  or  impanation,* — a  theory  of  the  Eucharist  so  nearly  ap- 
proaching to  the  Romish  dogma  of  transubstantiation  as  scarcely 
to  be  distinguished  from  it  ;f  and  also  for  their  preservation  (par- 
ticularly the  churches  of  Switzerland)  in  the  distinguishing  doc- 
trines of  grace. 

*  Calvin  published  a  Treatise  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  a.d.  1539,  in  which  he  maintains 
that  it  is  simply  and  essentially  a  commemoration  of  our  Savior's  sacrifice. 

t  The  theory  of  ConsubstarUialion  maintains  the  real  corporeal  presence  of  Christ  in, 
with,  and  under,  the  elements  of  the  Lord's  Supper  (as  fire  is  in  heated  iron).  That  of 
Transubstantiation,  that  the  elements  themselves  are  changed  into  the  real  body,  blood, 
soul  and  divinity  of  Christ,  etc. 


382 


SECTION    IV. 
THE    ANGLO-ENGLISH    REFORMATION. 

Proof  that  it  was  commenced  and  conducted  on  principles  cardinally  different  from  that 
on  the  Continent. — Essentially  Romish  and  Antichristian. — Never  repudiated  by 
that  Church. — HENRY  VIII.  aLaic,  yet  constitutiid  Supreme  Head,  Spiritual  and 
Temporal,  of  that  Church,  by  Convocation  and  by  Parliament. — Result. — Two 
Supreme  Heads  and  two  Catholic  Churches. — Both  claiming  to  be  founded  in 
"  THE  RisHT  OF  PRESCRIPTION." — Romanists  have  the  vantage  ground. — English 
Church  guilty  of  Rapacity  and  Schism. — E.xamination  of  this  claim,  '•  the  Right 
of  Prescription,"  by  the  English  Church,  as  involving  the  doctrine  of  "  The 
Divine  Right  of  Kings. — 1st,  By  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament;  2d,  do. 
N^ew  Testament. — The  Laico-Royal  Head  of  the  Anglican  Church,  the  FOUN- 
TAIN of  the  ENGLISH  and  AMERICAN  SUCCESSIONS.— Proof  that  the 
assumption  of  the  SUPREMACY  by  Henry  VIII.,  and  the  reconstruction  of  the 
English  Church  under  him  and  his  successors,  are  in  their  character  antichristian. — 
Prpof  of  the  rapacity  of  Henry  in  seizing  upon,  and  his  successors  in  retaining,  the 
Monastic  Possessions. — Use  of,  to  bribe  the  aristocracy  to  support  the  "  Church 
and  State"  alliance. — This  irreconcilable  with  the  Church's  declared  "  prescrip-  . 
five  rights."— Two  alternatives.— Proof  that  the  ANGLICAN  CHURCH  is  AN 
ENTIRELY  NEW  CHURCH.— Created  by  acts  of  Parliament.— Its  title.— 
"  The  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  by  LAW  established,"  not  by  Christ  and 
his  Apostles. — King's  coronation  oath. — Preface  to  Ordination,  etc.,  in  the  Anglican 
and  American  Liturgies. — Conclusion. 

Turn  we  now  to  the  Anglo-English  Reformation.  We  have 
said  (see  pages  379,  880)  that  the  cardinal  principles  which  formed  the 
basis  of  the  Anglican  Reformation,  taken  as  a  whole,  were  essen- 
tially different,  both  in  their  character  and  results,  from  those  on 
which  hinged  the  Reformation  on  the  Continent.  These  latter, 
we  have  shown,  consisted,  first,  of  a  solemn  protest  against  the 
Romish  theory  of  tradition,  as  the  basis  on  which  rested  the  entire 
superstructure  of  that  infinite  superstition  ;  and,  second,  against 
the  popedom  as  the  Antichrist,  and  the  system  of  papac}^  as  anti- 
christian. But,  to  support  the  claim  (which  it  is  pretended)  that 
these  principles  constituted  the  basis  of  the  Anglican  Reforma- 
tion, it  will  be  indispensable  to  identify  them,  as  in  the  former 
instance,  ivith  the  very  first  movements,  not  only,  but  as  constitut- 
ing the  grand  motive-power, — the  cause  which  originated  it. 

Now,  if  it  can  be  shown,  on  evidence  good  and  true,  that  the 
Anglican  Reformation,  from  the  very  outset,  hinged  on  principles 
obviously  antichristian,  and  that  these  principles  have  never  to 
this  day  been  repudiated  by  the  English  Church ;  in  other  words, 
that  the  Anglican  Reformation  still  rests  upon  its  origi^ial  basis,  it 
will  follow  that  it  has  no  claim  to  the  appellation  of  Protestant, 
in  tlie  sense  in  which  it  is  applicable  to  the  Reformation  on  the 
Continent. 


383 

To  test  tins  point.  As  we  have  seen,  the  darkness,  superstition, 
and  tyranny  of  the  papacy  in  England  had  totally  eclipsed  and 
supplanted  the  reformatory  efforts  of  the  evangelical  VVickliffe, 
long  before  the  accession  to  the  throne  of  Henry  VIII."'  And 
we  find  that  monarch,  as  an  evidence  of  his  zeal  in  support  of  the 
papacy,  in  the  year  1521,  publishing  a  defense  of  the  seven  sacra- 
ments against  Luther,  for  which  he  received  from  Pope  Leo  X. 
the  autichristian  title  of  "Defender  of  the  faith." 

But  he  linally  throws  off"  the  papal  yoke  (a.  D.  1580).t  For 
what  purpose?  As  we  have  shown,  pages  229-231,  that  he 
might  assume,  as  a  temporal  prince,  all  the  powers  and  j^reroga- 
tives,  spiritual  and  temporal,  which  inhered  in  the  popedom ! 
This  assumption  was  conlirmed,  first,  by  the  clerical  convocation 
of  Canterbury,  and  then  by  act  of  parliament,  declaring  that 
"archbishops,  bishops,  archdeacons,  and  other  ecclesiastical  per- 
sons, have  no  manner  of  jurisdiction  ecclesiastical  but  by,  under, 
and  from  his  royal  majesty;  and  that  his  majesty  is  the  only 
supreme  head  of  the  Church  of  England  and  Ireland,"  etc.,  "  to 
whom  all  authority  and  power  is  wholly  given  to  hear  and  deter- 
mine all  manner  of  heresies^  errors^  vices  and  sins  whatever^  and 
to  all  such  persons  as  his  majesty  shall  appoint  thereunto.":{:  On 
what  grounds?  On  the  ground  of  arguments  alleged  to  be  ad- 
duced against  the  papal  supremacy  in  England,  as  drawn  from 
Scripture  and  tradition,  and  in  support  of  the  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral supremacy  of  the  king  as  alleged  to  be  founded  in  Scripture, 
etc.  In  other  words,  the  English  Church,  in  severing  her  alle- 
giance from  the  Romish  Church,  claimed  to  do  so  upon  the  ground 
of  "  a  right  of  prescription  ;  that  is  to  say,  a  right  which  existed 
before  all  written  laws" — -jure  divino^  by  divine  right. 

This  "  right  of  prescription,"  however,  had  long  formed  the 
very  foundation  on  which  was  erected  the  superstructure  of  the 
papacv.  Yes.  Homanists  claim  that,  "from  the  beginning," 
their  church  was  established  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  on  the 
rock  Peter,  as  one  flock  and  fold  under  one  shepherd,  to  Avhom, 
in  the  line  of  the  popes  as  the  successors  of  Peter,  all  Christians 
owe  unconditional  spiritual  obedience ;  and  being  unconnected 
with  and  independent  of  the  state,  they  claim  to  hold  all  tithes  and 
oblations,  by  whomsoever  given,  as  belonging  to  God,  and  as 
coming  from  God,  and  therefore  that  they  belong  to  the  Church,  as 
a  man  claims  the  right  of  possession  to  his  lite  and  limbs,  and  ■ 
hence,  that  they  are  independent  of  all  temporal  or  secular  power. 
In  other  words,  independent  of  all  written  laws.§ 

Here,  then,  clearly,  are  two  separate  and  distinct  churches,  both 

*  See  pp.  378,  379. 

t  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  126,  221.  340. 

t  lb.,  pp.  182,  183,256,  Henry  VIII.,  statute  37,  chap.  17.  See  also  pp.  231,  et  seq. 
of  this  Treatise. 

§  See  Cobbelt's  Legacy  to  Parsons,  in  Six  Letters,  dedicated  to  Bioonnfield,  present 
Bishop  of  London,  pp.  i),  10.     New  York,  Sadlier.     1847. 


384 

claiming  an  absolute  independent  existence  of  each  other,  bj  a 
prescript  or  divine  right.  We  repudiate  the  claims  of  both  as 
equally  fallacious.  The  only  point  of  interest,  therefore,  regarding 
these  two  sects  is,  the  question  of  the  equity  of  their  respective 
claims. 

On  this  subject,  therefore,  we  remark  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
papists  have  the  decided  vantage  ground  in  one  aspect.  Romanism 
'  was  dominant  in  England^  till  about  the  twentieth  year  of  Henry 
VIIL,  A.  D.  1530.  It  is  hence  incumbent  on  the  English  Church 
to  "  show  cause,"  in  justification  of  the  two  following  acts  of  her 
monarch  against  that  Church  :  The  first,  his  setting  up  himself  as 
the  supreme  head  of  the  Church  in  things  spiritual  and  temporal, 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  alleged  supremacy  of  the  popedom  of 
Eome;  and  the  second,  his  sup2)ressing  the  monasteries.,  and  confis- 
cating, and  then  seizing  upon,  their  vast  estates,  which,  with  the 
parish  tithes,  amounted  to  more  than  one-third  of  the  whole  of  the 
real  property  in  the  kingdom.* 

Now,  clearly,  these  two  acts,  unless  supported  by  the  plainest 
warranty  of  Holy  Scripture,  inevitably  involve  the  charges  against 
the  English  Church,  both  of  rapacity  and  of  schism.  Let  us  look 
then  at  the  first  plea  oftered  in  justification.     This  is  founded, 

I.  In  the  alleged  divine  light  of  kings.,  alias,  a  prescriptive  right 
or  "  power  over  spiritual  persons  and  in  spiritual  causes,"  as  well 
as  those  civil  and  political.  It  turns  out,  hence,  that  the  alleged 
indeiDendence  of  the  Anglo-English  Church  of  the  See  of  Eome 
rests,  not  on  their  forming  "  a  portion"  of  the  old  British  Churches, 
and  deriving  their  succession  from  them ;  (which,  by  the  way,  is 
the  very  point  l^hat  Mr.  Chapin  has  devoted  so  large  a  portion  of 
his  book  to  j)rove) ;  but,  on  the  original  divinely-appointed  su- 
premacy, spiritual  and  temporal,  over  Church  and  State,  of  the 
British  monarch  ;  which  hypothesis,  if  founded  in  truth,  would  at 
once  prove  the  papal  supremacy  in  England  to  have  been  a  usurp- 
ation, the  casting  off  of  which,  upon  a  recovery  of  sufiicient 
strength,  Avould  be  justifiable,  not  only,  but  a  duty.  The  utter 
fallacy  of  this  hypothesis,  however,  is  apparent,  from  the  obvious 
sophistry  of  the  arguments  employed  to  uphold  it.  Take,  for  ex- 
ample, those  which  are  alleged  to  be  derived, 

1.  From  the  ^rijUures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Samuel 
acknowledged  Saul's  authority.  So  also  Abimelech  the  high 
priest.  David  made  laws  about  sacred  things,  and  commanded 
Solomon  to  do  the  same.  And  Jesus  Christ,  though  he  declared 
that  his  kingdom  was  not  of  this  world,  yet  nevertheless  paid  taxes 
to  the  pagan  emperor  Ca^sar.f 

Therefore,  the  king  of  England  is,  by  divine  right,  the  "  su- 
preme head"  of  church  and  state,  etc. ! :{;  and, 

*  Cohbelf's  Leftprs,  etc.,  p.  14. 

t  Burnet's  Histoiy  of  the  Relbrmation,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  229,  230.        J  lb.  p.  229. 


885 

•  Ergo,  tlie  pagan  emperor,  Ca?sar,  was  tlie  same. 

On  this  subject  of  tlio  alleged  divine  right  of  English  kings  as 
derived  from  Scripture,  we  beg  to  remark  simply  and  briefly,  that 
the  exchange  in  the  government  of  the  Jewish  Commonwealth  of 
a  theocracy  for  a  monarchy,  was  founded,  not  in  divine  appoint- 
ment, but  b}'  divine  permission.  Samuel's  reproof  of  Israel  for 
their  selection  of  Saul  as  their  king  to  the  rejection  of  the  covenant 
God  of  their  fathers,  and  the  miraculous  display  of  the  Divine  dis- 
pleasure which  accompanied  it,  together  with  their  confession  of 
their  sin  for  having  done  so,  is  evidence  of  this.'  Besides,  of  this 
very  Saul,  God  declares,  "  I  gave  thee  a  king  in  mine  anger,  and 
took  him  away  in  my  wrath."  ^  And  further.  Whatever  may  be 
said  of  the  Davidic  monarchy  as  predicted  by  Moses,  ^  and  renewed 
to  that  monarch  by  the  oath  of  the  Most  High,  "  that  of  the  fruit 
of  his  loins,  according  to  the  flesh.  He  would  raise  up  Christ  to  sit 
on  his  throne;"*  yet  the  very  circumstance  of  a  want  of  conformity 
of  the  principal  characteristics  of  that  monarchy  to  those  predicted 
by  ]\Ioses,  evidences  that  its  perpetuity  rested  rather  on  the  prior 
covenant  stipulations,  equally  certified  by  oath  to  David's  fathers, 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob :  "  Kings  shall  come  out  of  thee  ;  and 
"  in  thee  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  *  Indeed,  what  is  decisive  of  this  point  is  the  following 
declaration  of  Paul,  reaching,  as  it  does,  from  the  time  of  Saul,  the 
first  earth-horn  king  of  Israel,  down  to  his  own  times.  "  God,  in 
times  past,"  says  he,  suffered  (permitted)  all  nations  (the  Jews 
among  the  rest)  to  walk  in  their  own  ways."  ° 

Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  can  it  be  consistently  urged  that  the 
union  of  Jew  and  Gentile  under  the  Christian  dispensation,  will 
justify  a  transfer  to  any  monarchical  system  since  the  days  of  the 
apostles,  of  the  claim  that  it  is  founded  in  divine  right.  As  it  re- 
spects the  Gentile  monarchies  having  been  chosen  as  the  rivals  to 
the  ancient  theocrac}^,  they  became,  in  the  hands  of  God,  the  in- 
struments for  the  chastisement  of  his  rebellious  people, '  to  all 
future  generations.  These,  as  depicted  in  the  symbolico-prophetic 
colossal  image,  and  the  four  ferocious  beasts*  of  the  prophet 
Daniel,  ®  they  had  found  so  to  be  during  the  entire  interval  be- 
tween the  Babylonish  captivity  and  the  overthrow  of  their  national 
polity  under  Titus,  a.d.  70.  But  the  same  symbols,  particularly 
the  last,  were  designed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  portray  that  portion 
of  the  prophetic  earth,  on  the  platform  of  which  was  to  transpire 
the  mighty  conflict  between  the  true  religion  and  the  false. 

Now,  take  into  this  connection  the  fact,  that,  especially  from 
A.D.  70,  when  the  royal  scepter  of  Judah  was  torn  from  its  socket 
by  the  talons  of  the  Eoman  eagle,  that  nation  has  been  "  without 

(1)  Compare    1  Sam.  12  :  12,  with  v.  19.       (2)  Hosca  13  :  11.      (3)  Deut.  17  :  15.       (-1)  Acts  2  :  30 
(5)  Geu  12  :  3.     (6)  Acts  14  :  16.     (7)  Lev.  26  :  23.     (8)  Dan.  7  :  1-7. 

*  Denotins;  successively  the  rise  of  the  four  great  Gentile  monarchies,  the  B/ 
I.ONIAN,  the  Medo-Persi.\n,  the  Grecian,  and  the  Roman. 

25 


386 

a  king,  and  without  a  prince,"  etc., '  and  we  ask,  where  is  the  evi- 
dence to  upliold  the  claims  of  the  British  monarchy  as  founded  in 
Divine  right  ?  So  far  as  that  claim  rests  upon  the  precedent  of  the 
Davidic  monarchy,  the  English  throne  should  have  ever  been  filled 
by  a  Jew  or  a  Jewess,  as  the  case  might  be.  But  the  Anglo-Saxon 
origin  of  the  British  nation  is  proof  decisive  that  it  is  a  Gentile  na- 
tion. The  present  incumbent  of  that  throne,  and  the  long  line  of 
her  royal  predecessors,  in  the  sense  of  Moses  are  "  strangers,"  and 
hence,  not  eligiVjle  to  fill  a  vacancy  in  a  once  divinely-appointed 
line  (admitting  that  those  of  Saul  and  David  were  such)  of  kingly 
sovereigns.  There  is,  therefore,  we  affirm,  no  more  signal  mark  of 
politico-antichristianism,  than  for  a  nation  bearing  the  Christian 
name  under  a  monarchical  or  any  other  form  of  government,  to 
claim  that  its  throne  is  filled  in  the  line  of  succession  by  Divine 
rigid.     And, 

2.  If  we  add  to  the  above  considerations  the  fact,  that  it  forms 
no  part  of  the  genius  of  Christianity  to  originate,  transfer  or 
change  any  of  the  existing  forms  of  earth-born  governments,  but 
that  it  requires  the  most  unqualified  submission,  respect,  and  obe- 
dience to,  and  "the  offering  of  supplications,  prayers,  interces- 
sions, and  giving  of  thanks  for  all  men;  for  kings,  and  for  all  that 
are  in  authority,"  as  being  one  and  all  equally  "ordained  of  God;" 
it  follows,  that,  as  well  the  absolutism  of  the  chief  of  the  Pottawa- 
tomies,  the  despotism  of  the  autocrats  of  Russia  and  of  China,  and 
the  democracy  of  the  United  States,  as  that  of  the  monarchy  of 
Great  Britain,  are  founded  in  divine  right ! 

We  affirm,  then,  that  the  very  assumption  of  the  powers,  spi- 
ritual and  temporal,  by  the  monarchs  of  Great  Britain  as  the 
heads,  supreme,  of  the  Church  and  State  of  England  and  Ireland, 
stamps  it  with  the  indelible  impress  of  antichristianism.  We  are 
aware  that,  to  save  the  apostolical  succession  in  the  line  of  English 
prelates  (and  with  it  that  of  the  American  bishops)  from  the  catas- 
trophe which  this  assumption  of  powers  involves,  it  is  claimed  that 
the  validity  of  their  functions  respectively  depend,  not  on  their  ap- 
pointment by  the  crown,  but  on  their  Episco23al  consecration.  But 
we  argue  that,  if  Rome  usurped^  in  England,  as  is  alleged,  the 
once  independent  and  prescript  rights  of  the  British  crown  and 
Church,  then  the  act  of  throwing  off  the  papal  supremacy  must 
have  annihilated  as  well  the  ecclesiastical  as  \kiQ,  political  economy 
of  the  popedom  in  that  realm.  To  have  rejected  the  latter — the 
political,  while  they  retained  the  former — the  ecclesiastical — had 
been  to  have  conceded  that  the  English  Church,  with  all  her 
boasted  claims  to  a  "  right  of  prescription,"  was  nevertheless  de- 
-pendent  on  the  Church  of  Rome  for  the  apostolical  succession.^ 
which  had  been,  of  course,  to  have  left  the  work  but  half  accom- 
plished !     Accordingly,  as  no  one  will  pretend  that  there  was  any 

(1)  Hosea  3  : 4. 


387 

engrafting  by  popish  hands,  of  tlic  pohtical  powers  of  the  popedom 
on  the  scepter  of  iU'itisli  political  supremacy  ;*  so,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  following,  as  the  king's  commission,  authorizing  the  designa- 
tion of  bishops,  etc.,  shows  that  he  became  the  sole  fountain  of  an 
Episcopate,  (^d  novo.  "Since  «^^  jurisdiction,  both  ecclesiastical 
and  civil,  flowed  from  the  king  as  supreme  head,  and  he  was  the 
foundation  of  all  powers ;  it  became  those  who  exercised  it  only 
(priccario)  at  the  king's  courtesy,  grate fu.lly  to  acknowledge  that 
they  had  it  only  of  his  bounty,  and  to  declare  that  they  would  de- 
liver it  up  again,  when  it  should  please  him  to  call  for  it,"  etc.f 
And,  as  evidence  of  the  absoluteness  of  this  supremacy,  it  was  fur- 
ther enacted,  that,  however  great  their  offenses,  "  yet  it  is  no  where 
permitted  to  subjects  to  call  their  princes  in  question,  or  to  make 
insurrection  against  them,  God  having  reserved  the  punishment  of 
princes  to  himself.":}: 

But  it  will  be  said,  that  even  Henry  and  his  State  coadjutors 
denounced  the  popedom  as  ^^  Antichrist  and  Z,acifer.^'^  Granted. 
Of  course,  then,  no  one  will  pretend  that  so  earnest  a  zealot  of  re- 
form could,  for  a  single  moment,  tolerate  the  thought  of  retaining 
in  the  Church  of  which  he  was  the  supreme  head,  Home's  anti- 
christian  ministry.  So  far  from  it,  those  bishops  who  united 
with  the  king  in  this  act  of  revolt  from  Rome,  neither  did,  nor 
could,  move  hand,  or  foot,  or  tongue,  either  in  the  exercise  of  their 
own  functions,  or  in  the  transference  of  the  Episcopate  to  others, 
till  reneiotd  to  them  by  the  king's  "  courtesy"  and  "  bounty."  No. 
English  prelacy  sprang  not  up,  phoenix-like,  from  the  ashes  of  anti- 
christian  E.ome.  It  was  created  by  the  will,  and  moulded  by 
THE  HAND,  OF  THE  IMMORTAL  Henry  !  Yea,  and  by  the  same  act  of 
his  will,  it  was  perpetuated  or  annihilated.  As  "in  the  natural 
body,  there  were  many  vital  motions  that  proceeded  not  from  the 
head,  but  from  the  heart,  and  other  inward  parts  and  vessels,  and 
yet  the  head  was  still  the  chief  seat  and  root  of  life ;  so,  though 
there  be  peculiar  functions  appropriated  to  churchmen,  yet  the  king 
is  still  head^  having  authority  over  them.,  and  a  power  to  direct 
and  COERCE  them  in  these  !"|| 

But,  we  have  affirmed,  and  we  claim  to  have  proved,  that  the 
assumption  of  supreme  headship  over  the  Church  of  England  and 
Ireland  by  Ilenry  VIIL,  being  without  scriptural  warrant,  was  itself 
antichristian.  And  so,  the  reconstitution  of  the  English  Church 
under  that  monarch.  It  retained  all  the  old  features  of  anti- 
chrixtian  Rome.  Henry's  act  in  casting  off  the  papal  yoke,  con- 
sisted simply  in  the  transfer  of  the  very  same  supremacy  from  the 
person  of  the  pope  to  himself,  within  the  limits  of  his  own  domin- 
ions. So  also,  similar  spiritual  courts,  and  similar  ecclesiastical 
j  urisdiction,  were  continued  under  him,  which  had  been  established 

*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  I.,  p.  395,  et  seq. 

t  lb.,  Vol    I.,  p.  4-29.  X  II).,  Vol.  III.,  p.  429.  §  lb.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  231. 

II  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  I.,  p.  231. 


-V 


888 

under  the  Roman  pontilT.  And,  when  we  add  to  the  above  the 
fact,  that  when,  in  the  lull  spirit  of  papal  tyranny,  he  burnt  some 
of  liis  subjects  for  not  renouncing  the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  and 
others  for  renoimcing  some  of  tlie  grossest  errors  of  poper}^,  had 
not  11 K  also  every  Icature  of  "  the  Man  of  sin  ?"  Or  shall  the 
same  characters  be  allowed  to  denote  the  Man  of  God  in  England, 
which  in  Italy  serve  to  point  out  the  Man  of  sin  and  Son  of  perdi- 
tion ?* 

Henry  VIII.  departed  this  life  a.d,  1547,  in  the  56th  year  of 
his  age,  and  the  o8th  of  his  reign.  History  stamps  his  name  with 
the  deepest  infamy.  And,  without  doubt,  whether  viewed  in  the 
relation  of  husband,  or  father,  or  king,  or  as  the  assumed  head  of 
the  Cluircli,  he  was  one  of  the  most  capricious,  unjust,  and  "  san- 
guinary tj'rants  that  the  world  had  ever  beheld,  whether  Cliris- 
tian  or  heatlien."f 

We  here  remark,  by  the  way,  as  a  circumstance  of  no  small  mo- 
ment in  these  premises,  that  in  casting  off  the  papal  supremacy  in 
England  and  Ireland,  Henry  still  retained  the  title  conferred  on 
him  by  Pope  Leo  X.,  of  "Defender  of  the  Faith."  The  Church 
of  England,  though  professedly  reformed,  in  all  respects  was  es- 
sentially popish,  at  the  time  of  his  death.  This  result  followed,  as 
the  natural  sequence  of  the  motive  which  instigated  it, — that  of 
personal  resentment  on  the  part  of  Henry  against  the  popedom,  in 
the  matter  of  his  divorce  from  Queen  Catharine.  The  suppression 
of  the  monasteries  in  England  followed,  as  a  matter  of  course. 
On  their  immense  possessions  and  revenues  Henry  was  dependent 
for  the  consummation  of  his  work  of  reform.  Aware  of  the  then 
prevalent  disatfection  of  a  portion  of  the  aristocracy  of  the  realm 
against  the  popedom,  consequent  upon  the  enormous  drains  of  the 
papal  See  on  the  resources  of  the  kingdom,  the  arch  king  resolved 
to  command  their  united  influence  by  an  appeal  to  their  cujyidity . 
No  sooner  therefore  was  it  understood  that,  '  to  the  victors  belong 
the  spoils,'  than  two  acts  of  Parliament  are  passed,  (a.d.  15S5  and 
1539)  confiscating  the  immense  estates  of  the  monasteries,  and  em- 
powering tlic  king  to  dispose  of  them  to  whomsoever  and  in  what- 
ever way  he  might  please : — save,  indeed,  that  no  portion  of  it 
was  to  be  distributed  among  any  other  Christian  sects  out  of  the 
pale  of  "  Holy  Mother. ":j: 

And  all  this,  be  it  observed,  on  the  ground  of  the  claim,  by 
Parliament,  of  a  prescript  divine  right  so  to  do.  Parliament  sus- 
tained to  the  regal  Headship,  spiritual  and  temjDoral,  of  the 
Church,  a  relation  analogous  to  that  of  the  members  of  the  body 
to  its  head.  It  but  executed  Avhat  the  head  dictated.  Of  course, 
all  its  acts  were  clothed  with  an  authority  truly  divine  ! 

The  fallacy  of  the  dogma  of  the  divine  right  of  kings,  and  of 

*  Soc  Towors's  Illustration  of  Prophecy,  Vol.  I.,  p.  183. 
t  Cobbett's  Legacy  to  Parsons,  p.  15. 
t  lb  ,  p.  14. 


389 

the  alleged  independence  of  the  English  Church,  of  which,  if 
founded  in  truth,  it  must  be  the  basis,  has  been  already  sufficiently 
exposed.*  Indeed,  it  had  been  enough  to  have  rested  the  entire 
merits  of  this  question  on  the  single  consideration,  that  this  alleged 
supremac}'  did  not  and  could  not  raise  Henry  and  his  Parliament 
above  the  rank  of  mere  laymen  in  the  Church.  True,  emperors 
and  kings  had,  on  several  occasions,  nominated  jiopes  and  bishops 
for  vacant  sees,  not  however  (at  least  for  the  most  part),  without 
the  authority  of  a  papal  decretal.  It  remained  for  the  layman 
Henry,  to  be  the  first  to  reverse  the  long  standing  order  of  things 
in  these  premises ;  the  popedom  having  restC'l  their  claims  to 
temporal  power  on  the  ground  of  their  j^rescri] 'tivo  rights  as  the 
sj)i/'itmil  successors  of  St.  Peter.  And,  in  virtue  of  the  same 
prescriptive  rights,  to  hold,  as  most  sacredly  inalUnahle^  all  the 
possessions  of  the  Church. 

It  is  these  considerations  (as  we  have  already  intimated)  which 
render  it  imperative  to  a  successful  repelling  of  the  charges  of 
schism  and  rapacity  against  the  Eomish  Church,  that,  in  casting  off 
the  so-called  Church  and  State  papal  usurpation  in  England,  evi- 
dence the  most  decisive  be  adduced,  in  proof  of  the  prescriptive 
right,  first  of  the  royal  laic  Henry  to  become  the  fountain  of  a  new 
line  of  prelates  ;  and  second,  of  the  Parliament  to  seize  upon  the 
Cliurch  possessions  of  the  pope.  In  regard  to  the  first,  however, 
M-e  claim  to  have  shown  most  conclusively,  that,  from  the  time  of 
G-regory  I.,  the  papal  founder — through  the  agency  of  Augustine 
— of  the  Anglo-English  Church,  taken  in  connection  with  the  un- 
deniable fact  of  the  continuance  of  the  alleged  apostolical  succes- 
sion in  the  line  of  the  archbishops  of  Canterburj'  from  the  Romish 
Augustine,  that  Church  was  at  no  time  and  in  no  sense  independ- 
ent of  the  papal  see.  It  follows  that  the  act  of  the  laic  Henrj^,  in 
abjuring  the  papal  supremacy,  was  an  act  of  schism  against  that 
see.  It  was  the  setting  up  another  churchy  with  the  title  of  "  the 
Holy  Catholic  Church,"  under  a  royal  laic  head,  in  opposition  to 
that  very  Church  which  all  England  at  the  time  held  to  be  "  the 
only  true  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  universal,"  and  of  which 
the  pope  was  alleged  to  be  the  supreme  sjpiritual  head,  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

On  the  other  hand.  Pome  claimed  that  the  Church  possessions, 
from  whatever  sources  accruing,  being  held  bv  prescriptive  or  di- 
vine right,  were  beyond  the  legitimate  reach  of  laic  hands,  and 
hence,  that  it  was  the  highest  act  of  sacrilege,  for  either  king  or 
parliament  to  touch"  them.  Indeed,  under  "'Kenred  and  OlYa, 
kings  of  England,"  a.d.  709,  through  the  conjoined  efibrts  of  Egwin, 
Bishop  of  Worcester,  Birth wald.  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and 
Pope  Constantine,  the  "  sixty-five  ditterent  tracts  of  country" 
which  had  been  most  sacredly  "  ceded  to  the  pope  forever^''  and 
"  confirmed  by  a  synod  held"  the  same  year,  were  given  to  estab- 

*  See  pp.  314-3j9. 


390 

lish  tliose  very  monasteries  on  a  solid  and  permanent  basis,  wliicli 
were  designed  as  an  auxiliary  in  the  support  of  the  ijopcdoni  in 
England.* 

This  circumstance  alone,  then,  is  more  than  sufhcient  to  settle 
the  question  forever  as  to  the  right  of  king  and  parliament  to 
seize  upon  these  monastic  estates.  As  a  donation  from  the  En- 
glish crown.  Home  claimed  that  it  belonged  to  the  Church,  and  was 
to  be  used  only  by  and  for  the  Church,  in  the  same  sense  that  a 
man  claims  a  right  to  the  possession  and  use  of  his  life  and  linibs.f 
It  hence  follows,  that  this  laic  regal  and  parliamentary  act  of  con- 
fiscating said  monastic  possessions,  was  an  act  of  perfid}' ,  rajjacity, 
and  sacrilege ! 

And  now,  this  Anglican  reformed  Church,  thus  possessed  of  the 
tithes,  oblations,  bishop's  lands,  and  college  lands  of  the  popedom, 
not  only  claims  to  hold  them  by  right  of  prescription,  such  as  a 
man  has  to  an  estate  purely  private,  but  that  this  right  of  posses- 
sion is  beyond  all  the  inquiries  of  law ;  and  that  a  parliament 
must  be  a  tyrant,  and  guilty  of  rapine,  if,  by  its  acts,  it  alienate 
any  part  of  said  property  to  secular  uses,  or  appropriate  it  to  the 
support  of  any  of  the  so-called  disseniing  sects.  Hence  the  argu- 
ment of  Sir  Kobert  Peel,  during  the  discussion  of  the  question 
relative  to  the  admission  of  dissenters  to  take  degrees  in  the  uni- 
versities, etc.,  viz. :  that  the  Established  Church,  being  still  in 
fact  the  Catholic  Church,  by  the  above  procedure  was  merely  re- 
formed ;  and,  therefore,  that  it  was  in  possession  of  all  the  pre- 
scriptive rights  which  had  ever  belonged  to  "  Holy  Mother.";}: 

It  turns  out,  however,  that  there  is  a  sad  clashing  between  this 
hypothesis  of  the  so-called  Keformed  Church's  alleged  prescriptive 
rights,  and  the  uses  made  by  Henry  VIII.  of  the  confiscated  pos- 
sessions of  the  monasteries.  In  the  matter  of  his  invasion  of  the 
papal  2:)rerogatives,  as  the  supreme  head  of  the  English  Church, 
that  monarch  employed  them  as  the  means  of  hrihing  over  to  his 
side  the  AiiiSTOCiiACY  of  the  realm.^  To  this  use  of  said  property 
is  to  be  traced  the  origin  of  the  titles  of  all  the  lay  holders  of 
abbey-lands,  tithes,  oblations,  etc.,  M^hich,  thus  taken  from  the 
Church,  and  distributed  by  the  king  among  the  noblemen  and 
gentlemen  of  the  realm,  wore  alienated  from  the  Church,  and  are  to 
this  day  deemed  private  proj^ertj^l  Was  not  this,  then,  an  act  of 
rapine  ?  Take,  for  example,  the  immense  estates  granted  by  act 
of  parliament  to  the  Duke  of  Wellington  in  Strathlieldsay.^  These 
immense  estates  were  taken  from  the  Church.  Was  not  this,  then, 
an  act  of  tyranny  on  the  part  of  Parliament  ?  So  says  the  En- 
glish Church.  And  so  said  the  people  of  England  in  the  days  of 
Henry.  Yes.  Pleading  the  law  of  God,  and  denying  that  an^^ 
]:)arliament  had  a  right  to  pass  a  law  authorizing  laymen  to  receive 
tithes,  they  actually  refused  to  yield  their  tithes  to  la3'men  till 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  372.  f  Cobbett's  Legacy,  p.  10. 

t  lb.,  pp.  12,  37.  §  lb.,  p.  14.  li   lb.,  pp.  14,  37.      '    H  lb.,  p.  13. 


391 

compelled  to  do  so  by  tlie  severest  penalties  !  as  ma}'"  be  seen  by 
the  act  27th  of  Henry  VIII.,  chap.  20;  and  renewed  by  two  ad- 
ditional acts,  2d  and  3d  Edward  VI.,  chap.  13.* 

One  of  two  alternatives  follows  :  Either  the  parliament  has  no 
right  to  alienate  that  which  is  called  church  propert}',  in  which 
case  all  titles  to  lay  estates,  tithes,  etc.,  are  null;  or,  possessing 
that  right  on  the  principle,  that  what  a  parliament  can  do,  a  parlia- 
ment can  undo ;  these  lay-estates,  tithes,  etc.,  can,  by  act  of 
parliament,  be  disposed  of  in  any  manner  and  for  ariy  jourpose 
that  parliament  may  choose. 

The  matters  of  principal  concernment  to  us,  however,  are  the 
facts,  so  abundantl}'  established  in  the  preceding  pages,  first,  that 
the  Anglo-English  Church,  so  far  from  having  "ever  been  legally 
and  canonically  independent"  of  the  pope  of  Eome,f  was  JRoman- 
boni,  and  was  subject  to  the  dominion  of  the  papal  supremacy  from 
the  time  of  Gregory  I.  to  Henrj^  VIII.  Second.  That  the  abjura- 
tion of  the  papal  supremacy  in  England  by  that  monarch,  was  an 
act  of  usurpation  and  schism.  In  other  words,  we  mean  to  afl&rm, 
that  the  so-called  Reformed  Catholic  Church  of  England  IS  AN" 
ENTIRELY  NEW  CHURCH,  totally  unknown  in  history  till 
the  time  of  Henr}^  VIII.,  and  created  by  that  monarch  as  a  con- 
venient vehicle  through  which  to  transfer  from  the  pope  to  himself, 
the  spiritual  and  temporal  supremacy  of  the  Church  in  his  do- 
minions. 

Still  retaining  his  Romish  title  of  "  Defender  of  the  Faith,"  we 
bave  seen  how  Henry's  usurpations  of  the  prerogatives  of  the 
popedom  in  England  were  encouraged,  defended,  promoted,  and 
hnally  confirmed,  first  by  the  convocation,  and  then  by  acts 
of  parliament.  Also,  that  by  acts  of  parliament,  the  vast  es- 
tates of  the  monasteries  were  confiscated  and  given  to  the  king, 
who  distributed  them  at  will  among  his  lay  partisans,  the  aris- 
tocracy of  the  realm.  The  reader  tlierefore  will  unite  with  us 
in  according  to  parliament  the  meed  of  consistency  in  passing 
one  other  act,  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  above :  that,  we 
mean,  connected  with  the  names,  style,  and  title  of  their 
Church.  It  is  called,  "  the  Protestant  CJnirch  of  England  as  BY 
LAW  Established"  !  and  the  king's  coronation  oath  binds  him  to 
support  the  Protestant  Church,  '"as  by  LAW  Established.":};  And 
yet  another:  that  which  constitutes  the  king  as  the  supreme 
head  of  the  Church  in  England  and  Ireland,  the  fountain  whence 
flows  the  Episcopal  succession ;  the  Preface  to  the  "  Form 
and  Manner  of  Making,  Ordaining  and  Consecrating  Bishops, 
Priests  and  Deacons,"  both  in  the  English  and  American  Li- 
turgies, directing  that  none  be  thus  set  apart  except  those 
who  are  "  approved  and  admitted  thereunto  by  lo.wfvl  au- 
thority."    While,   therefore,  Romanists  allege  that  "their  Church 

*  Cobbett's  Legacy,  pp.  38,  39.  t  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  359. 

X  Cobbett's  Legacy,  p.  13. 


892 

originated  with  Christ  and  his  apostles,  the  Henraic  Ecformed 
Anglican  Church  is  founded  solely  on  acts  of  Parliament^  sitting  at 
Westminster.^'  Aye,  and  the  very  foundations  of  which  New 
Church  were  cemented  with  the  blood  both  of  Eomanists  and  Pro- 
testants,— the  former,  for  refusing  to  abjure  the  supremacy  of  the 
pope ;  the  latter,  for  renouncing  some  of  the  grossest  errors  of 
popery,  and  for  refusing  to  take  an  oath  recognizing  the  spiritual 
supremacy  of  Henry  VIII. ! 

It  will  be  in  place  here  to  remark,  that  while  matters  were  in 
their  transition  state.  Protestantism  was  making  great  progress 
in  the  southern,  which  were  the  richest  and  best  peopled,  parts  of 
England,  on  the  one  hand  ;f  and  on  the  other, — and  that  too  in  the 
latter  part  of  Henry's  reign, — his  subjects  in  the  north  were  gene- 
rally addicted  to  the  old  superstition.  We  refer  the  reader  to  Bur- 
net, for  an  account  of  his  severities  against  the  former,:}:  particu- 
larly the  Sacramentists,§  and  also  those  of  his  Komish  subjects. | 

*  CobbeU's  Legacy,  p.  13. 

t  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  L,  p.  188. 

t  lb.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  206,  and  pp.  363-365;  476-482. 

§  lb.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  40.'5-408. 

II  lb.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  563-582. 


393 


CHAPTER  Vin. 


THE  ANGLO-ENGLISH  REFORMATION,  AFTER  THE  DEATH  OF   HENRY  VIH., 
A.D.   1547,  UNDER  EDWARD  VI.,  MART,  AND  ELIZABETU. 

SECTION    I. 

Under  Henry  VIII.  nothing  Protestant  worthy  the  nanne. — I.,  Edward  VI. — Ruling 
motive  of  the  Guardians  of,  (the  king  being  now  but  ten  years  of  age)  in  promot- 
ing the  Reformation,  the  security  of  the  monastic  estates  now  in  their  possession.- — 
A  reformation  achieved,  not.  as  is  alleged,  "  by  the  common  consent  of  the  people ;"' 
not  by  the  conversion  of  Romanists  to  the  Protestant  faith,  but  by  the  compulsory 
Acts  of  Parliament. — Protestant  principles  subordinate. — ''  The  Book  of  Common 
Prayer"  under  Henry  and  Edward. — Its  near  identity  with  the  Romish  Mass  Book. 
— Judgment  of  the  Papists  on. — Statements  of  the  "  Commissioners"  under  Edward 
and  Elizabeth. — Also,  the  Romish  author  of  Horae  Biblias. — Lord  Chatham,  etc. — 
Proof  of  the  above. — Parliamentary  Acts, — 1 :  a.d.  1534,  which  abrogated  the  papal 
supremacy,  etc. ;  2 :  27th  year  of  Henry,  a.d.  1535,  and  31st  ditto,  a.d.  1539,  confis- 
cating the  monastic  estates ;  3  :  27th  Henry  VIII.,  chap.  20,  and  2d  and  3d  Ed- 
ward VI.,  chap.  13,  compelling  the  payment  of  lay  tithes;  4:  1st  Edward  VI., 
chap.  1,  A.D.  1547,  coercing  the  people,  Romish  and  Dissenters,  into  the  sheep-fold  ; 
5  :  1st  Edward  VI.  chap.  1,  a.d.  1547.  and  2d  Edward  VI.,  coercing  the  adoption 
and  use  of  the  Prayer-Book,  etc. — High  pretensions  of  "the  Protestant  Church  of 
England,"  etc. — The  only  true  Church,  etc. — The  Prayer-Book  composed  by  aid  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  for  '•  the  honor  of  God" !  Surely,  then.  Parliament  could 
never  turn  its  back  upon  such  a  Church  and  Prayer-Book  ! 

Of  the  Protestant  character  of  the  English  Church,  as  reformed 
by  Henry,  if  we  except  the  partial  restoration  of  the  Scriptures  to 
the  laity,  there  is  nothing  connected  with  it  deserving  the  name. 
A  brief  survey  of  the  progress  of  the  Reformation  after  the  death 
of  Henry,  a.d.  lo-iT,  taken  in  connection  with  the  motives,  mode 
of  operations,  etc.,  of  the  persons  engaged  therein,  with  an  exhibit 
of  their  results,  will  not  be  out  of  place. 

I. — Under  Edward  VI. 

During  the  lifetime  of  Henry,  the  lay  holders  of  the  confis- 
cated monastic  estates  remained  undisturbed  in  their  ill-gotten 
possessions.  But  now  that  the  original  Supreme  Head  of  their 
new  "  Catholic  Church"  was  gone,   Edward  "Vl.  being  a  minor. 


894 

and  the  government  devolving  npon  guardians  and  trustees,  to 
escape  the  contingcncj  of  a  re-action,  which  sliould  restore  popery 
and  the  monastic  estates  to  their  rightful  ownei's,  it  was  necessary 
to  abrogate,  to  efface  forever,  if  possible,  the  Catholic  religion  in 
England.  Nor,  considering  that,  with  comparatively  few  excep- 
tions, tlie  people  remained  firm  in  their  attachments  to  the  faith 
and  forms  of  Eomanism,  was  this  a  work  of  easy  attainment. 

Edward  YI.,  now  ten  years  old,  was  the  supreme  spiritual 
head  of  the  Church,  and  secular  sovereign  of  the  State,  and  still 
retained  (as  indeed  his  successors  continue  to  do  down  to  this  day) 
the  same  po^iish  title  of"  Defender  of  the  Faith,"  given  to  his  father 
by  Leo  X.  His  accession  to  the  throne  was  signalized  by  that  \erj 
state  of  things  which  the  diversified  sentimeiits  and  feelings  on  the 
part  of  his  subjects  might  lead  one  to  anticipate.  The  tendency 
of  Plenry's  movements,  as  a  reformer,  was,  to  unsettle  the  minds 
of  the  people  on  every  other  subject,  save  that  of  claiming  the 
right  to  think  and  decide  for  themselves  in  religious  matters.  The 
work  tlierefore  to  be  achieved  by  the  guardians  of  the  ''  boy  king" 
was,  to  preserve  "  the  Church"  of  Henry's  creating,  from  shipwreck, 
in  her  exposure  to  the  Scylla  of  Eomanism  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  Charybdis  of  Dissentism  on  the  other.  But  the  question  was, 
as  to  how  this  stupendous  work  was  to  be  accomplished  ?  On  the 
one  hand,  it  was  discovered  that,  in  doctrines  and  ceremonials,  there 
was  scarcely  the  shadow  of  a  shade  of  difference  between  the 
Henraic  reformed  and  the  Romish  churches.  On  the  other,  that 
of  the  so-called  dissenting  sects  (for  example:  Lutherans  and 
Sacramentaries,  etc.),  compared  with  the  others,  was  as  the  differ- 
ence between  light  and  darkness.  The  points  to  be  reached,  there- 
fore, were  first,  so  far  to  Protestantize  the  "  mongrel  Catholic 
Church"  of  Henry,  beyond  the  point  attained  by  that  monarcli,  as 
to  place  it  in  obvious  contrast  with  that  of  Rome  ;  while  at  the 
same  time  it  should  remain  so  far  Romanized,  as  to  indicate  its  ob- 
vious remove  from  Geneva.  And  second,  and  above  all,  as  we 
shall  see  in  the  sequel,  to  place  beyond  tlie  reach  of  both  the  Ro- 
manist and  Dissenter,  eitlier  the  recovery  of,  or  any,  the  least,  imriici- 
patio7i  in,  the  confiscated  sj)oils  of  the  old  monasteries. 

AVe  deem  it  essential  to  a  proper  understanding  of  the  principles 
involved  in  the  final  settlement  of  "the  Protestant  Church  of 
England  as  by  law  established,"  under  the  reigns  of  Edward  and 
Elizabeth,  again  to  allude  to  the  basis  on  which  the  action  of  the 
agents  employed  therein  was  predicated.  Suffice  it  to  say,  it  was 
identical  with  that  u.ndcr  Henry, — the  alleged  right  of  prescription, 
as  vested  in  the  supreme  headship,  spiritual  and  temporal,  of  the 
Crown.  Now,  the  advocates  of  that  Church  invariably  represent 
the  English  Reformation  as  the  result  of  a  general  conversion  of 
Romanists  to  the  Protestant  faith,  and  lience,  that  it  was  the  effect, 
not  of  the  compulsory  acts  of  parliament,  enforcing  conformity  by 
the  penalties  of  confiscation,   transportation,   imprisonments,   and 


395 

death  by  the  axes,  ba^^  onets,  halters,  and  fires  of  these  monarchs ; 
but  that  it  was  "  by  the  common  conaenl  of  the  j^eojjle,  as  if  it  had 
arisen  out  of  their  will,  and  had  been  their  work."  Nor  can  we 
be  surprised  at  the  plausibilitj^  with  which  this  assertion  is  put 
forward,  when  we  take  into  the  account  that  class  of  circumstances, 
at  this  time  so  auspicious  to  the  promotion,  in  England,  of  a  refor- 
mation, similar,  in  its  evangelical  features  and  results,  to  that  on  the 
Continent.  Tindall's  English  translation  of  the  New  Testament 
had  made  its  appearance  a,  d.  1526,  followed  by  the  publication  of 
a  complete  edition,  in  three  volumes,  folio,  of  Luther's  Bible,  in 
A.  D,  1534.  And,  in  the  short  space  of  the  five  following  years, 
these  were  followed  by  that  of  Coverdale,  and  by  Matthew's, 
compiled  from  Tindall's  and  Coverdale's,  in  two  editions,  the  first, 
by  Kogers,  and  the  last  by  Cranmer.  Then,  too,  various  exposi- 
tions of  the  Scriptures,  in  the  form  of  Paraphrases,  (Erasmus,) 
Treatises,  etc.  had  been  circulated  among  the  people.  Besides, 
even  in  the  time  of  Henry,  several  comparatively  sound  divines 
had  been  advanced  to  the  bench  of  bishops.  But,  in  a.  d.  1548, 
we  find  the  following  eminentlv  learned,  pious,  and  zealous  Conti- 
tienfal  reformers  at  Cambridge,  viz. :  Bucer,  Tremellius,  and  Fagius. 
While  at  Oxford  there  were  Peter  MartjT  and  Occhino. 

"We,  however,  must  insist  that,  to  whatever  extent  these  circum- 
stances were  made  available  in  giving  to  the  Anglican  Eeforma- 
tion  a  Protestant  character,  they  were,  nevertheless,  one  and  all, 
subordinated  to  the  one  grand  design  of  securing  "  to  that  Church 
all  the  powers,  all  the  exclusive  benefits,  all  the  protection,  and  all 
the  advantages,  necessary  to  make  it  a  valuable  thing  to  those 
who  would  necessarily  have  its  patronage  exclusively  in  their 
hands."*  Indeed,  so  far  from  that  reformation  being  conducted 
on  the  great  evangelical  principles  which  gave  birth  to  the  Pro- 
testant revolution  on  the  Continent, — principles  which,  as  we  have 
shown,  based  on  the  Scriptures  as  the  only  rule  of  faith,  to  the 
total  repudiation  of  a  graj'-grown  and  spurious  tradition,  and  on 
the  cardinal  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith,  abjured  the  popedom 
and  its  Pomanistic  sj'stem  as  antichristian  ;  so  far  from  its  being 
the  act,  or  sanctioned  by  the  common  consent,  of  the  people,  if  we 
except  those — the  aristocracy — who  were  in  possession  of  the  con- 
fiscated estates  of  the  monasteries ;  we  affirm  that  both  Eomanists 
and  Dissenters  were  of  one  mind,  on  the  article  of  the  new  head- 
ship, the  new  faith,  and  the  new  worship  of  that  Church  !  What, 
say  they,  a  mere  layman,  arrogating  to  himself  supremacy,  spiri- 
tual and  temporal,  over  Church  and  State  ;  and  in  virtue  of  the  dis- 
pensation called  the  Conge  deelire,-\  claiming  to  constitute  in  his 

*  Cobbett's  Legacy,  p.  IG. 

t  ■'  The  Ctmgt  de'eliri-  is  a  lem;e  to  elect ;  that  is  to  say,  a  leave  given  by  the  king  as 
head  of  the  church,  to  the  (lean  and  chapter  of  a  diocese,  to  elect  a  bishop.  When  they 
receive  this  leave  from  the  king  (or  queen,  as  the  case  may  be),  they  meet;  and,  after 
the  religious  ceremonies  and  invocations  suitable  to  the  occasion,  the  dean  pulls  out  of 
his  pocket  the  name  of  the  man  whom  the  king  has  given  them  leave  to  elect''''  as  one 
of  the  links  in  the  apostolical  succession !      (See  Cobbett's  Legacy  to  Parsons,  p.  46.) 


396 

own  person  the  fountain  wlieneo  alone  can  flow  the  true  apos- 
tolical ministry  of  the  Church  of  Christ?  A  headship,  too,  which, 
being  hereditary,  may  be  Jilled  by  "  a  boy,  or  a  little  girl  ;  nay,  a 
babe  in  arms  ;"  or,  perchance,  even  by  an  idiot  !*  As  they  are  the 
most  conspicuous  among  the  Eomanists,  we  here  give  the  names  of 
Sir  Thomas  More  and  Bishop  Fisher,  who  both  parted  with  their 
heads,  rather  than  acknowledge  "the  uniting  of  the  spiritual  supre- 
macy of  the  Church  with  the  temporal  supremacy  of  the  State," 
under  such  a  la}^  headship.  And,  as  to  the  dissenters,  it  were 
idle  to  attempt  a  description  of  their  sufferings,  on  the  same  ac- 
count. 

And  so,  of  "  the  Booh  of  Common  Pi^ayer^''  etc.  The  "  Litany" 
was  first  published  in  English  A.  d.  1544,  and  the  following  year, 
the  "  English  Book  of  Common  Prayer."  Its  character,  however, 
under  Henry,  may  be  inferred  from  the  "  six  articles'^  put  forth  by 
him  A.u.  1589  (in  reference  to  the  Eucliarist,  the  denial  of  the  cup 
to  the  laity,  celibacy,  chastity,  priA^ate  masses,  and  auricular  con- 
fession), all  of  which  were  rigidly  popish,  and  enforced  under 
penalty  of  death  !f  The  first,  under  Edward  VI.,  was  published 
A.  D.  1549,  somewhat  modified,  chiefly  at  the  hand  of  llermann, 
archbishop  of  Cologne.  The  following  year  it  was  reviewed. 
But  Bucer,  still  dissenting  from  many  of  the  alterations  made  as 
strongly  objectionable,  in  A.  D.  1552  another  Liturgy  (under  the 
direction  of  Cranmer,  with  the  aid  of  Bucer  and  Peter  the  Mart^-r, 
from  the  Continent)  was  put  forth,  which  is  substantially  the  same 
as  that  now  in  use. 

We  here  beg  to  remark,  by  the  way,  regarding  this  "  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,"  that  in  all  its  essential  features,  it  is  nothing 
more  than  "  an  extract  of  the  mass  translated" — its  festivals  and 
fasts,  its  anthems,  its  litany,  and  manj^  of  the  collects  and  lessons 
for  those  days,  being  nearly  identical  with  those  of  the  Eomish 
"  mass  hooW  now  in  use.  Its  Creeds  are  identical.:}:  Even  the 
second  prayer-book  of  Edward  VI.,  as  above,  retained  many 
things  so  strongly  objected  to  by  Bucer  on  a  former  occasion. 
The  papists  themselves  boasted  "  that  the  book  was  a  cowj^Zmwce 
witli  the/Ill  in  a  great  part  of  their  service ;  so  were  not  a  little  con- 
firmed in  their  superstition  and  idolatry,  expecting  rather  a  return 
to  them,  than  endeavoring  a  reformation  of  themselves."  Corrobo- 
rative of  this  is  the  fact,  that  "  the  commissioners  Avho  formed  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  under  Edward  VI.,  with  Archbishop 
Cranmer,  at  their  head,  themselves  declare,  that  "  every  thing 
sound  and  valuable  in  the  Romish  missal  and  hremary^  was  trans- 
ferred by  them  without  scruple,  to  the  English  communion  ser- 

*  Crtbbett's  Legacy,  p.  46. 

t  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  416,  417. 

t  Sec  "The  Apostolical  and  Primitive  Church,"  by  Coleman,  where,  in  an  Appen- 
dix, the  whole  is  compared  in  parallel  columns.  (Second  edition.  Boston:  Gouhl, 
Kendall  &  Lincoln :  1844.) 


397 

vice,  and  to  tlie  Common  Prayer  ;"*  whicb  "  sound  and  valuable" 
things  thus  "  transferred,"  may  be  gath'^red  from  the  following 
declaration  of  the  commissioners  who  were  appointed  by  Charles 
II.,  A.D.  IGGl,  to  revise  the  liturgy.  They  say  :  "  We  humbly  de- 
sire that  it  may  be  considered  that  our  lirst  reformers,  out  of  their 
great  wisdom,  did  at  that  time  compose  the  liturgy  so  as  to  win 
xil)on  the  pajnsts  and  to  draw  tJiein  into  their  Church  communion, 

BY  VERGING  AS  LITTLE  AS  THEY  COULD  FROM  THE  RoillSII  FOKISIS  BE- 
FORE IN  use" !f 

''Of  all  Protestant  churches,"  remarks  the  learned  author  of 
Horas  Biblicre,  himself  a  distinguished  civilian  and  Eoraan  Catho- 
lic, "  the  National  Church  of  England  most  nearly  resembles  the 
Church  of  Eomc.  It  has  retained  much  of  the  dogma,  and  much 
of  the  discipline  of  Eoman  Catholics.  Down  to  the  sub-deacon,  it 
has  retained  the  whole  of  their  hierarchy ;  and,  like  them,  has  its 
deans,  rural  deans,  chapters,  prebends,  archdeacons,  rulers  and  vi- 
cars ;  a  liturgy,  tahen  in  a  great  measure  from  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic liturgy^  and  composed,  like  that,  of  psalms,  canticles,  the  three 
creeds,  litanies,  gospels,  epistles,  prayers  and  responses.  Both 
churches  have  the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  eucharist,  the 
absolution  of  the  sick,  the  burial  service,  the  sign  of  the  cross  in 
baptism,  the  reservation  of  confirmation,  and  order  [ordination]  to 
bishops,"  etc.:}: 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  freely  conceded,  "that  the  [XXXIX] 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  strongly  protest  against  the 
errors  of  popery,  and  assert  the  doctrines  of  the  reformation."  But, 
what  marvel,  if,  in  view  of  the  palpable  variance  existing  between 
these  articles  and  the  prayer-book,  we  should  have  a  "  verification 
of  the  famous  declaration  of  Lord  Chatham,  that  the  Church  of 
England  has  "a  Calvinistic  creed,  a  Popish  liturgy,  and  an 
Arminian  clergy  ?"  What  marvel,  that  the  history  of  that 
Church,  from  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.  down  to  this  day  is  but  a 
tissue  of  internal  convulsions,  illustrative,  even  under  its  mildest 
form  of  development,  of  its  Eomish  character,  tendency,  and  ulti- 
mate destination  ? 

And,  to  return  from  this  digression — what  marvel,  that,  while 
the  papists,  speaking  of  the  reformation  prayer-book  during  the 
several  stages  of  its  progress,  said  of  it,  that  it  "  was  likely  to 
change  as  oft  as  the  fashion  did  ;  since  they  never  seemed  to  be  at 
a  point  in  any  thing,  but  new  models  were  thus  continually  fram- 
ing," the  so-called  dissenters  should  also  stand  aloof,  and  choose 
for  themselves  what  they  conscientiously  believed  to  be  "a  more 
excellent  way"  ? 

It  followed,  that,  bet^-een  the  discontents  of  the  one  party,  and 
the  clamors  of  the  other  (the  Eomonists)  for  the  restoration  of  the 

t  Coleman's  Apostolical  and  Primitive  Church,  p  440. 

X  lb.,  p.  442. 

X  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  II.,  p.  303. 


398 

old  order  of  things,  "  the  sharers  of  the  spoils  of  the  Church  and 
the  poor,"  together  with  "the  Protestant  Church  of  England  as 
by  law  estabhshed,"  which  they  were  engaged  in  placing  on  an 
immovable  basis,  were  held  np  to  ridicule  by  the  people  all  over 
the  kingdom,  "  in  dialogues,  rh3'mes,  songs,  plays  and  jests." 

Now,  this  conduct  was  beyond  endurance.  But  the  question 
arose:  how  was  it  to  be  suppressed?  How  were  these  malcon- 
tents to  be  c6nverted  over  and  brought  into  "  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England  as  by  law  established"  ?  Parliament  was  not 
long  in  its  deliberations  on  this  subject.  "  The  first  step  was  by 
an  act,  first  year  of  Edward  VI.,  chapter  1,  a.d.  1547.  1'his  is  an 
act  to  jjunish  people  for  speaking  irreverently  against  the  sacra- 
ment taken  in  both  kinds,  etc.  The  preamble  of  the  act  tells  us 
that  "this  new  practice  had  been  ridiculed  by  the  people,"  as 
above  set  forth.  It  enacted,  "that  these  rhymsters  and  singers 
should  suffer  imprisonment  for  their  bodies,  and  lines,  at  the  king's 
will  and  pleasure,"*  etc. 

Previously  to  this,  "  every  inducement  had  been  offered  to  with- 
draw the  parish-priests  from  their  religion."  "  The  king  had  put 
forth  a  book  of  homilies  and  a  catechism  ;  and  an  act  was  passed 
soon  after  (2d  and  3d  Edward  VI.,  chap.  21),  to  allow  priests  to 
marry,''  Still,  however,  the  great  body  of  them  "  remained  firm 
in  their  faith  and  their  practice. f  But  now,  parliament  makes 
another  move  in  relation  to  the  Prayer-Book.  "  The  preamble"  of 
this  act  (1st  and  2d  Edward  A^L),  sets  forth,  that  "  the  king,  in  his 
great  goodness,  has  appointed  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (Cran- 
mer)  and  others,  to  draw,  and  make,  one  meet  order,  rite  and 
fashion,  of  common  and  open  prayer,  and  administration  of  sacra- 
ments, to  be  had  and  used  in  his  Majesty's  realm  of  England  and 
Wales;  the  which,  at  this  time,  BY  AID  OF  THE  HOLY 
GHOST,  with  one  uniform  agreement  is  of  them  concluded,"  etc., 
to  his  great  comfort  and  quietness  of  mind,  entitled,  "  The  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,"  etc. 

"  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  etc.  Of  course  it  was  to  be 
used  by  all  the  people.  This  same  act  therefore  provided,  that 
"  if  any  rector,  vicar,  perpetual  curate,  or  other  priest,  with  bene- 
fice, should  in  future  say  mass  in  the  usual  manner,  and  not  use  the 
Common  Prayer  Book,'^he  should  forfeit  to  the  king  one  year's  re- 
venue of  his  benefice,  and  be  imprisoned  for  six  months  ;  that  for 
a  second  offense  he  should  be  deprived  of  his  benefice,  and  of  all 
his  spiritual  promotions,  and  be  imprisoned  for  one  Avhole  year ; 
for  a  third  offense,  imprisonment  duiing  his  natural  life ;  that  if 
the  priest  had  no  benefice,  he  should  be  imprisoned  for  six  months 
for  the  first  offense  ;  and  for  the  second  offense  should  be  impris- 
oned for  his  natural  life"  !  But  the  act  did  not  stop  here,  it 
went  on  to  the  loity ;  and  it  enacted,  that  "  if  any  onB  should,  by 

*  Cobbett's  Legacy,  etc.,  p.  17. 
t  lb.,  p.  20. 


399 

interludes,  plays,  songs,  rhymes,  or  by  other  open  words,  de- 
clare, or  speak  any  thing  in  derogation,  depraving,  or  despising  the 
said  Book  of  Connnon  Pi-ayer,  penalty  after  j)enalty  were  to  follow, 
till  at  last  eanie  forfeiture  of  goods  and  chattels  to  tlie  king,  and 
imprisonment  during  the  natural  life  of  the  party"  !* 

Tluis,  then,  to  use  the  language  of  Cobbett,  "  did  this  gentle 
Christian  church  begin ;  thus  did  tlie  angel  of  charity,  humility, 
and  humanity,  preside  at  her  BIRTH"!  Her  language  to  all 
was:  " //e?'e  is  this  Church  ;  take  it ;  oi\  take  pecuniary  ruin  and  im- 
prisonment/or life  "/f  And  yet  we  are  told  that  this  very  "  Pro- 
testant Church  of  England  as  by  law  established,"  was  the  result 
of  a  reformation  from  the  corruptions  of  popery,  orirfiaating  in  the 
will^  and  sanctioned  by  the  common  consent^  of  THE  people  \\, 

To  recapitulate.     We  have  seen^ 

Fiist,  That,  on  the  ground  of  an  alleged  prescriptive  right  in  the 
person  of  the  king,  the  convocation  and  parliament  constituted  and 
declared  Henry  VIII.  to  be  the  supreme  head,  spiritual  and  tem- 
poral, of  the  Church  of  England  and  Ireland,  and  the  fountain- 
head  of  the  English  succession. 

Second,  That  by  acts  of  parliament  (27th  j'ear  of  Henry,  A.D, 
1535,  and  81st  do.,  A.D.  1539),  all  the  vast  possessions  of  the 
Romish  monasteries  were  put  into  his  hands,  to  be  disposed  of 
accoriling  to  his  good-will  and  pleasure. 

Third,  That  in  the  exercise  of  these  rights,  and  in  direct  viola- 
tion of  the  plea  by  English  Churchmen,  that  the  parliament,  though 
holding  these  vast  possessions  by  virtue  of  her  prescriptive  rights, 
yet  could  not  alienate  them  from  the  Church ;  Henry  VIII.  did 
nevertheless  distrib-.ite  them  among  the  lay  aristocracy  of  England; 
and,  that  the  people  were  comjoelled,  bv  acts  of  parliament  (27th 
Henry  VIII.,  chap.  20 ;  and  2d  and  3d  Edward  VI.,  chap.  13), 
under  the  severest  penalties,  to  pay  tithes  to  laj'men,  upon  the 
same  footing  with  those  of  the  clergy. 

Fourth,  That  the  people  were  coerced  into  the  sheep-fold — ■"  the 
Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established" — by  the 
sheer  force  of  parliamentary  acts  (1st  Edward  VL,  chap.  1,  A.D. 
1517).     And, 

Fifth,  That  by  similar  parliamentary  acts,  they  were  coerced 
into  the  adoption  and  use  of  "  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer"  (1st 
and  2d  Edward  VL). 

"  The  Protestant  Church  of  England" !  The  only  true  Church 
of  Christ  now  on  earth,  or  that  ever  was  on  earth  :  compared  with 
which,  all  others  are  either  usurpations  (as  the  Roman  Catholics  and 
the  Greek  Church),  or  human  inventions,  unauthorized  conventi- 
cles, etc.  (as  the  Presb\  terians.  Independents,  Baptists,  etc.),  and 
therefore  unworthy  so  noble  and  dignified  a  title.     As  so  many 

*  Cobbett's  Legacy,  etc.,  pp.  19-21.  f  lb.,  p.  21.  %  lb.,  p.  50. 


400 

broods  of  non-conforming,  dissenting  sectaries,  their  character  and 
their  doom  arc  typified  in  those  of  the  schismatical  rebels  in  the 
camp  of  Israel ! 

And  then,  too,  "  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  "  the.  golden 
language  of  our  liturgy."*  How  sublime  !  "  The  wit  of  men  and 
angels  could  not  mend  it."f  "  Our  liturgy  is  "  so  divinely  com- 
posed, that  if  the  angels  in  heaven  needed  prayer,  they  might  use 
it.";}:  Our  Parliament  (composed  of  "  the  lords" — the  lay  aris- 
tocracy, and  the  bishops — "  spiritual  and  temporal,  and  the  com- 
mons) has  declared,  that  Cranmer  and  his  companions  composed 
the  Prayer-Book,"  hy  "  aid  of  the  Holy  GTiost^''  and  "for  the  honor 
of  God,"  etc.  And  the  learned  Bishop  Beveridge  says  :  "I  can't 
but  ascribe  to  the  same  extraordinary  aid  and  assistance  from 
God,"  the  "compiling  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  whereby  they 
were  afterwards  enabled  to  suffer,  and  confirm  what  they  had  done 
with  their  blood."§ 

High  pretensions,  these.  Indeed,  what  could  be  more  so  ? 
Surely,  then,  from  such  a  divinely-constituted  Church,  and  from 
such  a  heaven-inspired  Prayer-Book,  their  original  founders  and 
authors  could  never  have  turned  their  faces  ?  Though  the  one  had 
been  built  up,  and  the  use  of  the  other  enforced,  by  confiscations, 
imprisonment,  and  death  in  its  varied  and  most  horrid  forms,  yet 
Parliament,  "  representing  the  whole  body  of  the  realm  of  En- 
gland, and  the  dominions  of  the  same,"  acting  by  virtue  of  a  pre- 
scriptive or  divine  right  in  all  that  they  either  ever  said  or  did  in 
these  matters;  surely,  we  repeat,  this  Parliament  could  never  have 
proved  so  recreant,  as,  under  any  circumstances^  to  denounce  and 
turn  their  backs  upon  such  a  Church  and  Prayer-Book  ? 


SECTION    n. 

II. — Mary,  a  Romanist. — Conduct  of  Parliament  on  her  accession.— Renounce  the 
Protestant  Church  and  Prayer-Book,  acknowledge  themselves  schismatics,  and 
pledge  their  return  to  the  bosom  of  Holy  Mother,  on  condition  of  their  being 
permitted  to  retain  the  monastic  estates.  (See  their  petition  to  the  queen,  Appen- 
dix F.) — The  pope  grants  absolution. — Popery  again  restored. —  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer,  the  most  distinguished  of  the  English  reformers. — Held  in  high 
repute  as  such. — Our  duty. — His  true  character. — His  end. 

II.  Mary. 

Let  us  see.     The  throne  of  England,  vacated  by  the  death  of 
Edward  YI.,  a.d.  1553,  is  filled  by  Mary,  who,  though  coerced  by 

*  Bishop  Burges.s's  Charge,  etc.     Protestant  Churchman^  August  17,  1850. 

■}■  Abbot  against  Church  Forsakers,  p.  13. 

\  Norris's  Sermon  before  the  Oxford  University. 

§  Beveridge's  Discourse  on  the  Excellency  of  Common  Prayer.     2d  Ed.,  4to.,  p.  32. 


401 

ner  royal  father  Henry  YIII.  into  an  acknowledgment  of  his 
supremacy  as  the  spiritual  and  temporal  head  of  the  English 
Church,*  3'et  having,  under  Edward,  adhered  to  the  Roinisli 
faith  and  communion,  and  acting  upon  "the  settled  constitution 
and  laws  of  the  country,"  resolves  upon  a  restoration  of  the  Catho- 
lic religion. 

This  resolve  is  to  be  viewed  as  a  test  oJ  the  integrity  of  the  origi- 
nal founders  of  '■'■  the  Pjjotestant  Ghurch  of  England  as  hj  law  es- 
tablished.^^ 

The  result  is  before  us.  The  convocation  being  assembled, 
Weston,  dean  of  Westminster,  acting  as  prolocutor,  sounded  the 
tocsin  of  war  to  the  reformers — "  You  have  the  ivord^  but  we  have 
the  SWORD."  Panic-stricken  at  this  announcement,  these  very 
Protestant  reformers  enter  "into  a  negotiation  with  the  queen, 
agreeing  to  give  up  their  Booh  of  Common  Prayer.^  and  with  it 
"  the  Protestant  Church  of  England^  as  hy  lavj  established  /"  td 
restore  the  Catholic  7'eligion  by  coercion,  if  necessary ;  to  ac- 
knowledge themselves  to  have  been  schismatics  /  to  receive  abso- 
lution from  the  pope  as  rehels  against  his  authority,  though  they 
had  declared  his  supremacy  in  England  a  usurpation,  and  had  de- 
nounced his  holiness  as  the  Antichrist  and  Lucifer ;  and  above  all 
things,  agreeing  to  abrogate,  as  schismatical,  that  very  Prayer- 
Book  which  they  had  before  declared  in  the  preamble  to  an  act  of 
parliament,  to  have  been  composed  by  the  "  aid  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  and  which  was,  they  said,  made  "  to  the  honor  of  God ;'''' 
agreeing  to  all  this,  *  *  *  Upon  what  condition  ?  Answer. 
They  would  do  all  this,  if  the  queen  would  obtain  the  consent  of 
the  pope,  and  give  her  own  consent,  to  suffer  them  to  keep  the  im- 
mense masses  of  property  in  land  and  in  tithes^  which,  diu'ing  the 
two  preceding  reigns,  they  had  grasped  from  the  Church  and  the 
poor.f 

Suffice  it  to  say,  the  queen  assented.  The  pope's  pardon  was 
obtained.  These  once  zealous  Protestant  parliamentary  reformers 
are  secured  in  their  possession  of  the  "  golden  wedge,"  and  Cardi- 
nal Pole,  the  pope's  legate,  is  sent  to  England  to  absolve  them  and 
the  nation  from  the  sin  of  apostasy,  and  again  to  restore  England 
to  the  communion  of  the  papal  See. 

But  Cranmer,  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  under  Henry  and 
Edward.  Surelj^  he  did  not  apostatize  !  Let  us  see.  In  speaking 
of  this  English  reformer,  we  must  premise,  that  such  is  the  estima- 
tion in  which  he  is  held  by  all  classes  of  Protestants  for  his  emi- 
nent learning,  probity,  moderation,  piety  and  zeal,  that  it  cannot 
be  deemed  otherwise  than  perilous  to  one's  reputation,  even  to 
allude  to  the  best  authenticated  facts,  which  might  in  the  least 
derogate  from  his  fair  fame.  The  work  assigned  to  us  in  the 
providence  of  God,  however,  is  to  lay  open  to  the  view  of  the 

*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation.  Vol.  I.,  p.  335. 
t  See  copy  of  tiicir  Petilioii.  Appendix,  F. 
2o 


402 

reader  the  true  character  of  the  AngUoan^  in  contradistinction  from 
the  Continental,,  reformation.  But  these  receive  their  impress  from 
the  character  and  the  motives  by  which  their  agents  respectively 
were  actuated,  and  which,  of  course,  can  only  be  known  by  their 
acts.  And,  as  of  the  acts  of  parliament,  so  of  the  acts  of  an  indi- 
vidual, than  whom,  no  one  bore  so  conspicuous  a  j^art  in  the  ranks 
of  the  English  reformers,  as  Thomas  Cranmer. 

That  Cranmer's  lot  was  cast  in  troublous  times — times  which 
tried  men's  souls — is  true.  It  is  equally  true  that  God  knows  best 
when,  and  how,  and  to  what  extent,  to  extend  His  mercy  toward 
the  frailties  and  infirmities  of  his  creatures.  We,  however,  have 
to  do  with  facts.  Of  these,  as  it  regards  this  distinguished  person- 
age, we  cannot  here  enter  into  detail.  "We  remark  then  in  brief: — 
History  affirms  that  Cranmer  was  a  polygamist,  his  first  wife,  whom 
'  he  married  while  a  Fellow  in  Cambridge  College,  being  yet  alive, 
when  he  married  a  second  from  Germany,  and  both,  in  known 
violation  of  the  laws  both  of  the  College  and  of  the  Church,  which, 
at  the  time,  enjoined  celibacy.  As  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  he 
divorced  Ilenry  VIII.  from  three  v/ives,  though  he  had  declared 
the  marriages  of  the  first  two  to  be  valid ;  while  of  one  (Anne 
Boleyn),  though  he  denied  that  she  had  ever  been  the  king's  wife, 
he  yet  voted  for  the  death  as  an  adulteress  !  Under  Henry  he  burnt 
men  and  women  for  not  being  Catholics,  and  Eomanists  for  not 
acknowledging  the  king's  supremac}^ ;  and  under  Edward,  he 
burnt  Protestants,,  because  their  grounds  of  protesting  were  differ- 
ent from  his.  On  the  death  of  Edward,  he  attempted  to  divert  the 
crown  of  England  from  his  legitimate  successor,  Mary,  in  favor 
of  Lady  Jane  Grey ;  (who,  in  consequence,  fell  an  innocent,  be- 
cause an  involuntary,  victim,  to  his  false  zeal;)  and  afterwards, 
being  defeated,  he  plotted  with  traitors  in  the  pay  of  France  to 
overset  her  government.  Brought  at  last,  however,  to  trial,  and 
being  condemned  as  a  heretic,  he  professed  himself  ready  to  recant ! 
He  was  respited  for  six  weeks,  during  which  time  he  signed  six 
different  forms  of  recantation^  each  more  ample  than  the  former. 
He  declared  that  the  Protestant  religion  was  false;  that  the 
Romish  Church  was  the  only  true  one;  that  he  had  been  a  horrid 
blasphemer  against  the  sacrament;  and  concluded  by  imploring 
their  mercy,  and  their  prayers  in  behalf  of  his  poor  soul ;  declar- 
ing, that  what  he  then  did,  was  for  the  discharge  of  his  conscience^ 
and  as  a  warning  to  others. 

All  this,  however,  as  wo  know,  was  in  his  case  of  no  avail. 
Right  or  wrong,  on  the  part  of  his  judges,  he  was  condemned  to 
the  stake. 

And  now,  being  brought  to  the  public  reading  of  his  recanta- 
tion, seeing  the  pile  ready,  and  finding  there  is  no  escape  for  him, 
(without  pretending  to  arbitrate  upon  the  motive  which  prompted 
this  closing  act  of  his  life),  he  recanted  his  recantation ;  and,  thrust- 
ing into  the  fire  the  hand  that  signed  it,  expired,  protesting  against 


403 

that  very  religion  in  which,  only  nine  hours  before,  he  had 
called  God  to  witness  that  he  firmly  believed  ! 

If  the  reader  will  pardon  the  paradox,  the  Reformation  now 
advanced  backward.  All  Protestant  preaching  was  prohibited. 
Gardiner  and  Bonner  were  restored  to  their  places.  The  same 
Parliament  which  had  declared  that  the  Prayer-Book  was  com- 
posed by  "  aid  of  the  Holy  Ghost,^^  now  pass  an  act  denouncing  it 
as  heretical.  The  same  Parliament  also  repeals  all  the  former  acts 
of  Edward  VI.  which  bore  a  Protestant  character.  The  law  of 
celibacy  is  again  enforced  against  the  clergy,  and  vast  numbers  of 
them  are  ejected  from  their  livings.  And  these  acts  are  followed 
up  by  a  most  violent  persecution  against  all  who  refuse  to  ac- 
knowledge allegiance  to  Rome !  The  Romish  Cardinal  Pole  is 
raised  to  the  archiepiscopate  of  Canterbury.  Persecution  continues 
to  rage  with  unabated  fury,  till  the  death  of  Mary,  A.p.  1558. 


SECTION  in. 

III.  Elizabeth. — She  also  a  Romanist. — Surely,  then,  Parliament  continues  to  adhere  to 
the  Romish  Faith  ? — Not  so. — The  Monastic  Estates  are  jeoparded  by  the  illegiti- 
macy of  the  Queen ! — And,  all  again,  by  Acts  of  Parliament,  become  Protes- 
tant ! ! ! — Act  1st  of  Elizabeth,  chap.  1,  restored  to  her  the  same  title  held  by 
Henry  and  Edward  (and  which  is  retained  to  this  day),  and  secured  to  the  Aris- 
tocracy the  Monastic  Estates,  clauses  17,  18,  19,  enacting  the  severest  penalties 
against  all  malcontents. — The  "  Commission." — Second  Act,  1st  Elizabeth,  chap. 
2,  restored  the  Prayer-Book,  designed  more  especially  for  the  benefit  of  Romanists, 
enforced  by  the  severest  penalties. — Another  Act,  35th  Elizabeth,  chap.  1,  en- 
titled, "  An  Act  to  retain  the  Queen's  subjects  in  their  due  obedience,"  etc.,  de- 
signed for  the  benefit  of  Dissenters. — Enforced  by  the  gentle  penalties  of  banish- 
ment for  life,  and  death  ! — These  horrid  enactments  remained  in  full  force  until 
the  time  of  James  II.,  and  for  attempting  to  mitigate  which,  he  lost  to  himself  and 
his  posterity  for  ever,  the  British  throne  ! — Partially  modified  under  Williani  and 
Mary. — Less  rigidly  enforced  now. — Conclusion. — Present  aspect  of"  the  Protestant 
Church  of  England  as  by  Law  Established." 

The  bloody  Mary  was  succeeded  by 

III.  Elizabeth. 

This  queen  also,  was  a  Roman  Catholic,  both  by  profession  and 
public  worship.  She  had  been  crowned  by  a  Catholic  Bishop,* 
and,  as  by  several  acts  of  parliament,  "  the  Protestant  Church  of 
England  as  by  law  established,"  together  with  the  "  Prayer-Book," 
had  been  most  solemnly  abjured ;  and  both  Parliament  and  people 
(by  their  own  confession, — acknowledging  their  schismatical  apos- 
tasy from  the  true  and  only  Catholic  ChYirch  of  Christ  on  earth ; 

*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  589,  590. 


404 

and  that  Henrj  VIII.,  in  assuming  the  supremacy  over  the  Church 
of  England,  was  a  rebel,  and  a  usurper  of  the  rights  of  his  Holi- 
ness the  Pope),  having  been  takeji  back  into  the  bosom  of  "  Holy 
Mother  Church  ;"  they,  surely,  noiv  remained  lioman  Catholics  to 
the  end  of  their  days  ?-' 

But,  again,  we  repeat,  Let  us  see.  Elizabeth's  first  intentions 
unquestionably  were,  to  maintain  the  Romish  religion.  She,  how- 
ever, was  an  illegitimate,  having  been  born  of  Aimc  Boleyn  during 
the  lifetime  of  Henry's  first  wife  Catharine,  whose  divorce  from 
that  king  the  Komish  See  had  ever  declared  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses, invalid.  More  than  this,  she  had  been  so  declared  by  an 
act  passed  during  the  reign  of  Henry.  Aware,  therefore,  that  the 
pope  would  not  recognize  her  legitimacy ;  and,  of  course,  would 
not  acknowledge  her  right  to  the  throne  of  England,  she  resolved 
to  turn  Protestant  herself,  and  to  Protestantize  her  subjects  also.f 

The  reader,  if  he  has  a  genuine  enlightened  Protestant  head  and 
heart,  making  little  account  of  Rome's  objection  to  Elizabeth's 
title  to  the  English  crown,  and  hailing  with  joy  this  new  prospect 
of  England's  redemption  from  the  tyrann}^  and  superstition  of  pa- 
pal Rome,  eagerly  inquires, — How  was  this  great  Avork  accom- 
plished ?  Was  it  by  the  revival  and  promotion  of  the  primitive 
faith  and  order  of  the  gospel  by  means  of  persuasion?  By  appeals 
to  the  understandings  and  consciences  of  men  ? 

So  far  from  it,  the  ver}^  first  act  of  parliament  under  this  queen, 
(1st  of  Elizabeth,  chapter  1,)  swept  away  the  whole  of  what  had 
been  done  during  the  reign  of  Mary,  Avith  the  exception  that  it 
secured  to  the  aristocracy  the  plunder  of  the  Church  and  the  poor ; 
and  those  same  men,  who  had  so  recently  received  absolution  from 
the  pope  as  schismatical  rebels  against  his  authority,  now  enact 
that  the  supremacy  of  England,  spiritual  and  temporal,  had  ahodys 
belonged  to  the  king ;  and  actually  required  an  oath  from  ev^' 
Englishman,  declaring  a  firm  belief  in  the  supremacy  of  the  queen, 
the  full  title,  as  it  existed  under  Heur}^  and  Edward,  including 
that  of  "  Defender  of  the  Faith,"  being  now  restored  to' her.  The 
oath  (in  use  to  this  day)  begins  thus :  "  I,  A.  B.,  do  utterly  de- 
clare and  testify  in  my  conscience,  that  the  Queen's  Highness  is 
the  only  supreme  governor  of  this  realm,  as  well  in  all  spiritual 
and  ecclesiastioal  things,  or  causes,  as  temporal.":}: 

But  further.  This  first  act  of  parhament  (clauses  17,  18,  19) 
gave  to  the  queen  full  authority  to  ap})oint  a  commission,  consist- 
ing of  certain  hisJiops  and  others,  whose  powers  extended  over  the 
whole  kingdom,  and  over  all  ranks  and  degrees  of  people.  They 
were  empowered  to  have  an  absolute  controls  over  the  opin- 
ions of  all  men,  and,  merely  at  their  own  discretion,  to  inflict  any 
punishment  short  of  death,  on  any  person  whatsoever,  Thej^ 
might  proceed  legall}''  or  otherwise,  in  the  obtaining  evidence 
against  parties  ;  and,  upon  mere  hearsay,  by  imprisonment  or  tor- 

*  Cobbett's  Legacy,  p.  28.  f  lb.,  pp.  28,  29.  J  lb.,  p.  29. 


405 

ture,  to  extort  an  accusation  against  himself,  his  friend,  his  brother, 
his  father,  upon  pain  of  death.* 

With  the  above  powers  of  this  commission  before  us,  we  pass 
now"  to  the  second  act  of  parHament.  (1st  Ehzabcth,  chap.  2.) 
This  was  an  act  to  restore  "  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer."  For 
a  refusal  to  use  this  Prajer-Book,  the  above  act  enforced  the  penal- 
ty of  confiscation,  the  loss  of  ecclesiastical  preferments,  and  impris- 
onment— for  tlie  first  offense,  six  months  ;  for  tlie  second,  during 
life.  For  speaking  in  derogation  of  the  Prayer-Book,  or  for  ridi- 
culing the  new  religion  by  songs,  jests,  plays,  etc.,  it  enacted  the 
heaviest  tines,  and  imprisonment  for  life,  according  to  the  number 
of  offenses. 

These  acts  of  parliament  were  designed  more  particularly  to 
reach  the  liomanists.  But  now,  another  act  (35th  Elizabeth, 
chap.  1)  was  passed,  designed  for  the  more  especial  benefit  of  the 
Dissenters.  It  is  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  retain  the  Queen's  Magis- 
ty's  Subjects  in  their  due  Obedience,"  (alias)  the  notable  "  Act  of 
conformity''''  to  "  the  Protestant  Church  of  England,  as  by  law 
established."  This  act  begins  thus:  "For  the  preventing  and 
avoiding  of  such  great  inconveniences  and  perils  as  might  happen 
and  grow  by  the  wicked  and  dangerous  practices  of  seditious  sec- 
taries and  disloyal  persons,  be  it  enacted,"  etc.  Under  this  act, 
all  persons,  of  whatever  rank  or  degree,  above  the  age  of  sixteen 
years,  Avho  refused  to  go  to  some  church  or  chapel,  or  place  of 
conunon  prayer,  or  who  persuaded  any  other  person  not  to  go,  or 
who  should  be  at  any  conventicle,  or  meeting,  under  color  or  pre- 
tense of  any  exercise  of  any  religion  other  than  that  ordered  by 
the  State ;  then  every  such  person  was  to  be  committed  to  prison, 
there  to  remain  until  he  should  be  ordered  to  come  to  such  church 
or  usual  place  of  common  prayer,  and  there  to  make  an  open  sub- 
mission and  declaration  of  his  conformity,  in  these  folloAving 
words : — "  I,  A.  B.,  do  humbly  confess  and  acknowledge  that  I 
have  grievously  offended  God,  in  contemning  her  majesty's  lawful 
government  and  authority,  by  absenting  myself  from  church,  and 
in  using  unlawful  conventicles  and  assemblies,  under  pretense  and 
color  of  exercise  of  religion ;  and  I  am  heartily  sorry  for  the 
same ;  and  I  do  acknowledge  and  testify  in  my  conscience  that  no 
person  hath,  or  ought  to  have,  any  power  or  authority  over  her 
majesty ;  and  I  do  promise  that  I  will,  from  time  to  time,  repair  to 
the  church  and  hear  divine  service,  and  do  my  utmost  endeavor  to 
defend  and  maintain  the  same." 

Now,  let  us  look  at  the  'penalty^  in  case  of  disobedience.  The 
offender  was  to  "  abjure  tlie  realm ;"  that  is  to  say,  he  was  to 
banish  himself  for  life  ;  and,  if  he  failed  to  do  this, — if  he  did  not 
get  out  of  the  kingdom  in  the  course  of  such  time  as  should  be 
appointed  by  the  authority  of  the  queen ;  or  if  he  returned  into 

*  Cobbetl's  Legacy;  pp.  .52,  53, 


406 

the  kingdom  without  her  leave,  such  person  so  offending  "  was  to 
be  adjudged  a  felon,  and  was  to  suffer,  as  in  cases  of  felony,  with- 
out beneiit  of  clergy  :"  that  is  to  say,  suffer  the  sentence  due  to 
arson  or  murder  ;  to  he  hanged  hy  the  ixeck  till  he  was  dead  /'* 

It  only  now  remains  that  we^add  in  conclusion  on  this  subject, 
that  those  horrid  enactments  of  Parliament  remained  in  full  force 
through  the  remainder  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  ;  through  that  of 
James  I.,  Charles  I.,  and  Charles  II.,  and  Avere  never  attempted  to 
be  mitigated  until  James  II.  made'  the  attempt,  and  which  attempt 
was  the  real  cause  of  the  loss  of  the  throne  to  him  and  his  pos- 
terity, forever.  They  were  first  successfully,  but  then  only  very 
partially,  mitigated,  under  William  and  Mary.f 

If  it  be  urged  that  these  acts  were  not  the  acts  of  the  Church, 
but  of  the  king  or  queen,  as  the  case  might  be,  we  reply,  that 
they  could  not  have  passed  without  the  concurrence  of  the  bishops 
and  the  clergy ;  they  were  to  be  the  executors  of  the  law,  or  to  see 
the  law  executed  ;  they  were  to  receive  the  submission  and  declara- 
tion of  conformity ;  the  minister  of  the  parish  was  to  make  a  re- 
cord of  the  submission,  and  he  was  to  make  a  report  of  it  to  the 
bishop.  It  was  hence  clearly  a  church  affair  altogether.:{:  And, 
as  all  know,  who  are  even  but  partially  acquainted  with  the  more 
modern  doings  of  that  Church,  it  is  but  recently,  comparatively, 
that,  forced  by  the  increasing  light  and  intelligence  of  the  times, 
and  the  loud  clamor  every  where  raised  against  the  monstrous  in- 
justice and  cruelty  of  infringing  upon  the  rights  of  conscience  by 
imprisonments,  fines,  confiscations,  and  death  ;  the  dissenters  of 
England  of  the  present  generation  have  obtained  any  thing  ap- 
proaching to  a  substantial  relief  from  that  galling  yoke  of  confor- 
mit}^  to  a  parliament-made  Church,  which,  from  the  period  of 
Henry's  usurpation  of  the  papal  prerogatives  in  his  dominions, 
down  to  this  present  hour,  still  rests  on  the  triple-columned  basis, 
— "  a  Calvinistic  creed,  a  Ponish  liturgy,  and  an  Arminian 
clergy !" 

*  Cobbett's  Legacy,  pp.  47-49. 
t  lb.,  pp.  49,  50. 
X  lb.,  pp.  52,  54. 


407 


CHAPTEE  IX. 

THE  ALLEGED  SUCCESSION  OF  THE  AMERICAN  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 
SECTION    I. 

Reference  to  the  proofs  of  its  derivation  fronn  the  Ecclesiastico-political  lay  supremacy, 
spiritual  and  temporal,  of  the  Anglo-English  crown. — Four  conditions,  as  the  only- 
methods  of  escape  therefrom,  and  of  the  refutation  of  the  charge  of  its  Romish 
origin,  etc. 

I.  It  must  suffice  that  we  refer  the  reader  to  what  we  have 
already  offered  on  this  subject,'^  demonstrative  .of  the  derivation 
of  the  American  succession  of  bishops,  not,  as  Prelatists  allege, 
from  Christ  and  his  apostles,  but  from  the  Politico-Ecclesi- 
astical Headship,  the  lay  supremacy,  spiritual  and  temporal,  of 
the  Anglo-English  crown.  Not  however  that  we  feel  any,  the 
least,  tenacit}^  on  this  point,  as  though  the  question  of  the  validity 
of  the  Episcopal  claim  to  an  unbroken  apostolical  succession  as 
urged  by  American  prelatists,  was  suspended  upon  the  single  cir- 
cumstance here  brought  to  view.  So  far  from  it,  even  admitting 
that  the  Anglo-English  succession  from  the  time  of  Henry  VIIL, 
in  the  line  of  the  archiepiscopate  of  Canterbury,  derived  its  alleged 
validity,  not  from  the  declared  "prescriptive  right," ^w^^e  divino^  as 
vested  in  the  crown,  but  from  their  episcopal  consecration  ;  yet  it 
will  be  incumbent  on  them  to  prove  that  that  line,  as  derived  from 
Augustine,  as  "  the  first  Saxon  bishop,  and  the  first  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,"  as  alleged  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Chapin,f  xoas  not  of 
Romish  origin,  not  only,  but  also  that  "  it  is  evident  unto  all  men 
diligently  reading  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,"  First,  that 
Christ  transferred  his  "  headship"  to  his  twelve  apostles.  Second, 
that  he  delegated  to  them,  and  they  to  their  successors,  the  autho- 
rity to  continue  "  the  very  same"  headship,  office,  and  functions, 
to  the  end  of  time.  Third,  that  the  validity  of  each  consecutive 
link, — "the  collation  of  holy  orders" — (Bp.  Jer.  Taylor),  depends 
upon  tlie  transference  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (the  highest  miraculous 
act  apostolic)  by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  tltree  bv^hops^  them- 
selves episcopally  baptized,  and  ordained  deacon  and  priest.  And 
Fourth,  that  that  alleged  unbroken  succession,  exhibiting  the 
names  of  the  consecrated  and  their  consecrators,  together  with  the 

*  See  pp.  231-234  ;  and  also  pp.  386,  387. 
t  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  29L 


408 

circumstances  of  time,  place,  etc.  when  each  act  was  performed, 
furnish  a  duly  authenticated  register  of  its  authenticity,  showing 
it  to  have  been  "preserved  as  inviolate  as  the  line  of  the  descent 
of  Adam,  or  the  succession  of  seedtime  and  harvest,  of  day  and 
night,  of  summer  and  winter"  !*  Yea, — according  to  the  true  and 
only  consistent  theory  of  preTacy,  that  "  register"  must  exhibit  a 
less  degree  of  uncertainty  than  those  of  the  descent  of  our  Lord,  or 
of  the  Commonwealth  of  Israel,  from  Adam  ;  or  of  the  succession 
of  the  high  priesthood  in  the  line  of  Aaron.  Or,  "like  the  chil- 
dren of  liebaiah,  of  Koz,  and  of  Barzillai,"  failing  to  jQnd  "their 
register  among  those  that  were  reckoned  by  genealogy,"  they  must 
be  pronounced  "  as  polluted,''^  and  be  "  put  from  the  priesthood"  ! ' 
Yea,  more.  Agreeably  to  the  theory  of  Bishop  McCoskrey,  they 
must,  in  case  of  failure  to  produce  such  a  "  register,"  be  placed  in 
the  rank  of  ^^  gross  impostors  f''\  and  occupy  the  position  in  the 
Church,  Christian,  analogous  to  that  of  the  rebellious  schismatics, 
Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  in  the  camp  of  Israel !  We  repeat : 
Nothing  short  of  such  a  "  register"  will  satisfy  the  demands  and 
verify  the  claims  set  up  by  that  powerful  champion  of  LOW 
CHURCHiSM,  the  Right  Rev.  Charles  Petit  Mcllvaine,  Bishop 
ol  the  diocese  of  Ohio,  that  the  line  of  prelates  of  which  he  claims 
to  form  the  tioenty-seventh  link  in  the  line  of  American  bishops,  is 
"fastened  at  its  beginning,  upon  the  THRONE  OF 
GOD  "!:}: 

When  the  above  four  conditions  demonstrative  of  the  claims  of 
Prelacy  shall  have  been  fully  met,  the  author  of  this  Treatise,  for 
his  own  part,  will  pledge  himself  to  the  performance  of  any  act  of 
penance  consistent  with  the  discipline  of  "  the  gospel  and  the 
Church,"  which  may  be  prescribed  to  him  as  the  condition  of  his 
restoration  to  the  true  fold ;  and  will  also  venture  to  prognosti- 
cate, on  the  behalf  of  every  honest  anti-jDrelatist,  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  his  error,  and  an  earnest  seeking  to  place  his  head  under 
the  all-potent  alembic  of  prelatical  hands. 

On  the  other  hand,  till  these  conditions  be  fully  met.  We,  (that 
is,  7J  the  author  of  this  Treatise)  under  a  deep  sense  of  our  respon- 
sibility to  God,  according  to  "the  measure  of  the  Spirit"^  vouch- 
safed us  in  "  diligently  reading  the  Holy  Scripture  and  ancient 
authors"  in  our  search  after  truth  in  the  premises,  do  hereby  de- 
clare our  deliberate  and  solemn  conviction  and  iDclief,  that  all  who, 
from  the  apostles's  times  down  to  this  day,  have  said  or  do  now 
"  say  they  are  apostles" — alias  Prelatical  Bishops,  "  are  not,  but 
are  found  liars." 

Thus  decided  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  his  commendation  of  the 
Ephesian  angel,  for  his  fidelity  in  testing  and  exposing  the  daring 
imposture  of  those  who,  in  his  time,  arrogated  to  themselves  a 
place  beside  "  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb." 

(1)  Ezra  2  :  61,  62.  (2)  1  Cor.  12  :  7. 

*  Bp.  Mclh'aine's  Ari^ument  tor  the  Apostolical  Succession,  p.  9. 
t  Bp.  McCo.-krey,  Episcopal  Bishops  the  Successors  ofthe  Apostles,  p.  12. 
1  Bp   Mclhainc's  Arnumcnl  lor  the  A'X)stolical  Six-ct-s.^ioi-    •>  '^ 


409 


CHAPTER   X. 

OF  THE  FRATERNAL  CHARACTER  OR  PERFECT  EQUALITY  OF  THE 
OFFICE  AND  FUNCTIONS  OF  ELDERS  OR  PRESBYTERS,  AND 
BISHOPS. 

SECTION   I. 

Importance  of  a  further  exhibit  of  the  subject  of  this  Chapter,  in  contrast  with  the  pre- 
latical  theory. — Proofs  of  the  parity  or  perfect  equality  of  the  ordinary  ministry  of 
divine  appointment,  as  derived,  1st :  From  the  interchangeable  use  of  the  titles, 
Elder  and  Bishop. — 2d :  From  the  declarations  of  prelatists  themselves. — Also 
from  the  writings  of  the  purest  ages  of  antiquity. — The  terms  Ordo,  Gradus,  Offici- 
um,  defined. — Circumstances  which  originated  a  diversity  in  ecclesiastical  func- 
tions,— Elfric,  Ambrose,  etc. 

The  important  bearing  of  the  subject  of  this  chapter  on  the  general 
issue  involved  in  these  inquiries,  demands  for  it  a  farther  consider- 
ation at  our  hands.  After  what  has  been  already  offered  in  Parts  II. 
and  III.  of  this  Treatise,  demonstrative  of  the  fallacy  of  the  alleged 
"divers  orders"  of  Prelatists,  Romish,  Tractarian,  and  High  and  Low 
Church  ;  all  that  is  now  designed,  is,  to  show  that,  contrary  to  the 
prelatical  dogma,  namely,  that  bishops  are  now  what  the  apostles 
were  in  their  time  (minus  their  extraordinary  endowments  as  in- 
sisted on  by  some) ;  they,  that  is,  presbyters  and  bishops,  in  office 
and  functions,  are  one  and  the  same  Order  ;  which  order,  with 
that  of  deacons,  constitute  the  two,  and  these,  the  only  divinely- 
appointed  ordinary  and  standing  orders  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
for  all  time. 

I.  Our  first  evidence  is  derived  from  the  interchanojeable  use  of 
the  names  or  titles,  elder^  TrQeajSvreQog,  presbyter;  and  bishop, 
emoKOTTog,  overseer ;  in  the  New  Testament,  to  denote  the  same 
offtce.  In  proof,  to  save  space,  Ave  refer  the  reader  to  Part  II.  of 
this  Treatise,  p.  159 ;  and  Part  III.  pp.  274,  275. 

II.  This  is  corroborated  by  the  declarations  of  Prelatists  themselves. 
These  are  collected  from  those  passages  in  their  Avritings  in  which 
they  attempt  to  account  for  the  substitution  of  the  name  bishop,  in 
the  place  of  apostle.  Thus,  Theodoret : — "  The  same  persons 
were  anciently  called  promiscuously  both  bishops  and  presbyters, 
whilst  those  who  are  noio  called  bishops,  were"  (then)  "called  apos- 


410 

ties.  But  shortly  after,  the  name  of  apostles  was  appropriated  to 
such  only  as  Avere  apostles  indeed,"  etc.*  "  They  who  are  now 
called  bishops,  were  originally  called  apostles  ;  but  the  holy  apos- 
tles being  dead,  they  who  were  ordained  after  them,  were  in  many 
respects  inferior  to  them.  Therefore  they  thought  it  not  decent  to 
assume  to  themselves  the  name  of  apostles,"  etc.f  The  learned 
Hammond  says,  "  that  in  Scripture  times  the  name  of  presbyter 
belonged  principally,  if  not  alone,  to  hishops,^^  etc.ij:  Bishop  Gris- 
wold,  spcalving  of  the  New  Testament  age,  says,  "  the  elders,  pres- 
byters, or  priests,     .     .     .     were  tlie7i  also  styled  hishops.^^^     And 

again :    "  The  name  of  apostle  was  not  long  continued 

Alter  their  death,  their  successors  in  office  modestly  assumed  the 
name  of  ,bishop."|| 

Here,  then,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  conceded  that,  during  the 
apo.s'tles^s  times,  and  also  "  after  tJteir  death^''  the  titles  Presbyter 
and  Bishop  were  applied  "  promiscuously"  to  the  smne  jperson^  and 
denoted  the  sam.e  offi.ce  and  functions. 

In  the  next  place,  we  concede  and  contend  for,  Avhat  prelatists 
affirm,  namely,  that  the  persons  known  by  this  double  title  of 
preshyter-hisJw])  during  and  "after"  the  apostolic  age,  filled  an 
office,  and  exercised  functions  entirely  different,  both  from  the 
New  Testament  apostles,  and  from  those  whom  Theodoret  in  his 
time,  and  they  now,  call  bishops. 

But  Theodoret  affirms  that  the  hisJiops  of  his  time  filled  the 
office  of,  and  performed  the  functions  peculiar  to,  the  apostles  in 
their  own  times. 

It  follows,  that,  as  those  who  bore  the  title  of  hisJi op  during,  and 
for  some  time  "after"  the  New  Testament  age,  filled  an  office, 
and  performed  functions  notoriously  inferior  to  those  of  the  apos- 
tles, the  bishops  contended  for  by  prelatists  must  be  an  entieelt 
NEW  OKDER  in  the  Church  of  Christ.     And  we  remark. 

Finally,  of  human  origin,  and  that,  according  to  their  own 
showing.  Thus  St.  Ambrose,  as  quoted  by  Amalarius.  "  The 
holy  apostles  being  dead,  they  who  were  ordained  after  them  to 
govern  the  churches,"  etc.  Surely  then,  if  these  bishops  apostolic 
were  not  "  ordained"  till  "  after"  the  death  of  "  the  holy  apos- 
tles," they  could  not  have  been  ordained  hy  apostolic  hands. 

What  now,  we  deferentially  ask,  becomes  of  Bishop  Mcllvaine's 
apostolical  chain,  "preserved,"  as  he  alleges,  "as  inviolate  as  the 
line  of  the  descent  of  Adam,  and  "  fastened,  at  its  beginning, 
upon  the  throne  of  God"  ?^ 

*  Theodoret,  as  quoted  by  Bingham.     Antiquity  of  the  Christian  Church,  Vol.  I.,  p. 
21,  fol.     London:   1726. 

t  St.  Ambrose,  as  quoted  by  Anialarius.     Bingham,  Vol.  I.,  p.  21. 

%  Bingham,  lb 

§  Bishop  Griswold  on  the  Apostolical  Succession,  p.  8. 

II  lb.,  p.  7. 

1[  Argument  for  the  Apostolical  Succession,  p.  9. 


411 

m.  The  same  fact  is  conjh'mcd  hy  tlie  writings  of  tJis  purest 
ages  of  antiquity.  The  extracts  here  given  from  the  writings  of 
"  the  early  fathers,"  we  would  remind  the  reader,  are,  for  the  most 
part,  the  very  passages  on  which  prclatists  mtist  and  do  rely  (so 
far  as  the  testimony  of  tradition  is  concerned)  for  the  support  of 
their  episcopacy  of  three  orders.  We  shall  content  ourselves  to 
present  them  almost  without  comment,  leaving  the  reader  to  make 
his  own  inferences  respecting  them,  only  begging  to  premise  by 
the  way  that,  in  order  to  a  proper  understanding  of  these  ancient 
writers  on  the  subjects  quoted,  it  is  necessary  to  fix  the  meaning 
of  the  terms  or^o,  gradus^  officium^  (order,  degree,  and  office,)  etc. 

These  terms,  we  remark,  were  employed  by  them,  not  as  imply- 
ing the  origin  of  difterent  ranks  of  officials,  jure  dlvino^  but  sim- 
ply to  denote  distinct  classes  of  persons,  who,  though  they  per- 
formed different  acts,  were,  nevertheless,  of  the  same  order^ 
degree^  or  ojjice.  Hence,  Bishop  Taylor :  "  It  is  evident  that  in  all 
antiquity,  ordo  and  gradus  (order  and  degree)  were  used  promis- 
cuously." So  Bingham  :  "  St.  Jerome,  who  by  all  will  be  allowed 
to  speak  the  sense  of  the  ancients,  makes  no  difference  in  these 
words,  ordo,  gradus,  offidum,''''  etc.* 

With  this  fact  in  view,  we  are  furnished  with  9,  hey  explanatory 
of  those  passages  of  the  fathers  which  would  seem,  at  first,  to 
countenance  the  prelatical  theory  of  the  superiority  of  bishops,  as 
an  order,  over  that  of  presbyters.  The  circumstances  which 
originated  this  diversity  of  ecclesiastical  functions  among  those 
holding,  de  facto,  the  same  scriptural  office,  may  be  gathered 
from  the  following,  out  of  many  similar  passages  which  might  be 
given.  Elfric,  who,  according  to  Fox  the  martyrologist,  was 
archbishop  of  Canterbury  about  a.d.  996,  says:  "There  is  no 
more  difference  between  the  mass-presbyter  and  the  bishop  than 
this,  that  the  bishop  is  appointed  to  confer  ordinations,  etc.,  which, 
if  every  presbj^ter  should  do  it,  would  be  committed  to  too  many. 
Both,  indeed,  are  one  and  the  same  order,  although  the  part  of 
the  bishop  is  the  more  honorable.  Ambo  siquidem  unum  eun- 
demque  tenent  ORDINEM  quamvis  sit  dignitor  ilia  pars  ep)i8copi.''''\ 
But  long  before  this,  as  early  as  about  a.d.  370,  in  Ambrose's 
Commentaries  on  Paul's  Epistles,  may  be  found  the  following : — 
"  The  apostles' s  writings  are  not  altogether  agreeable  to  the  order 
of  things  as  nov)  -practiced  in  the  Church.  For  Timothy,  who 
was  ordained  a  presbyter  by  Paul  [?  see  pages  149-151  of  this 
Treatise,  Part  II..]  he  calls  a  bishop ;  because,  at  the  first, 
presbyters  were  called  bishops ;  and,  as  one  departed,  the  next 
succeeded  to  the  office.  But  because  the  next  in  succession  were . 
found  unworth}^  to  hold  the  primacy,  the  custom  was  changed  by 
the  provision  of  a  council,  so  that,  not  the  next  in  order,  but  the 
next  in  merit,  should  be  made  bishop,  and  constituted  such  by  the 

*  Bingham's  Christian  Antiquity,  Book  II.,  c.  1,  p.  17 

t  Canons,  etc.,  a  Laur.  Howell,  A.M.,  pp.  66,  67,  folio.     London :  1708. 


412 

judgment  of  a  number  of  the  priests"  [presbyters],  "  lest  an  un- 
wortliy  person  should  usurp,  and  become  a  general  scandal."* 

It  will  be  well  for  the  reader  to  mark  the  two  points  here  pre- 
sented. The  first,  that  gospel  truth  and  purity^  and  not  an  un- 
broken genealogical  succession,  is  the  criterion  of  a  true  succes- 
sion. The  second,  that,  as  a  prudential  arrangement, — a  matter  of 
EXPKDiENOV,t — one  presbyter  was  selected  fi'om  among  the  rest,  and 
by  them  placed  over  the  body  as  superintendent,  called  by  Am- 
brose, "  inter  Presbjrteros  primus,"  or  "  Primus  Presbyter, ";};  and 
to  whom  was  given  the  name  of  bishop. 


SECTION    n. 

Extracts  from  the  Fathers. — Clem.  Romanus,  Ignatius,  Justin  Martyr,  Irenseus,  Tertul- 
lian,  Origen,  Cyprian,  Firmilian,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  Jerome 

III.  Now  for  our  extracts  from  "  the  Fathers^  We  shall  be- 
gin with, 

1.  Clemens  Romanus,  a.d.  70.§  The  earliest  writer  after  the 
apostles.  In  his  epistle  to  the  Church  of  Corinth,  the  apostles,  he 
says,  "  preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  appointed  the  first 
fruits  of  tlieir  conversions  to  be  bishops  and  deacons  over  such  as 
should  afterwards  believe,  having  first  proved  them  by  tlie  spirit," 
And  he  adds :  "  Our  apostles  knew,  bj^  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  there  would  be  contention  about  the  name  of  Episcopacy  : 
and  therefore,  being  endued  with  a  perfect  foreknowledge,  they 
appointed  the  aforesaid  officers,  namely,  hishop)s  and  deacons^  and 
gave  regulations||  for  these  offices  separately  and  mutually,  that  so 
when  they  died,  other  proved  men  might  succeed  to  their  minis- 
try." "  Bishops,  Avith  St.  Clement,"  says  Lord  Barrington,  "  are 
always  the  same  with  elders  or  presbyters,  as  any  one  must  see  if 
they  read  the  Epistle."  Of  presbyters,  he  speaks  thus:  "Ye 
walked  according  to  the  laws  of  God,  being  subject  to  those  who 
had  the  rule  over  you,  and  giving  the  honor  that  was  fitting  to 
such  as  were  presbyters  among  you."^"     And  again  :     "  Only  let 

*  See  our  exhibit  of  the  adverse  views  of  modern  prelatists,  pp.  218,  219. 

t  See  Chap.  VI.,  Sec.  I.  \  Ambrose's  Com.  1  Tim.  3  5  and  Eph.  4. 

\  Cave's  Lives  of  the  Fathers. 

II  Prelatists  make  the  "  regulations"  to  refer  to  the  succession:  for  example:  Arch- 
bishop Usher  has  it,  '^  ordincm  prcescriptum;'"  Dr  Hammond,  '' scricw  succcssionis,  cata- 
logum;''  Archbishop  Wake's  translation,  ^' gave  directions,  how,  when  they  [the  apos- 
tles] should  die,  other  chosen  men  should  succeed  in  their  ministry."  But,  if  Clement 
had  meant  '■^  catalogus,'^  a  catalogue,  he  would  have  written  KuraXtyoi;  i{  ^-  series  succes- 
stows,"  .'iii'I»Y'/ )  if  ordo,  rain.  His  expression,  /it-,,'-  trira/<;|,  following  immediately 
upon  his  mention  of  bishops  and  deacons,  evidently  implies,  ''a  law  or  regulation  of 
these  offices  separately  and  mutually."     Hence  the  above  translation. 

1  Epistles,  sec.  1. 


413 

the  flock  of  Christ  be  in  peace  with  the  ^?re5Jy^(er5  that  are  set 
over  you."* 

2.  Ignatius,  a.d.  101.  +  The  writings  of  this  father  form  the 
stronghold  of  prelacy.  But  the  "  weak  silly  rant  and  rhodo- 
montade''  with  which  they  abound,  together  with  the  fact  that 
some  parts  of  his  first  reputed  Epistles  have  been  rejected  as  he- 
retical by  some  of  the  most  learned  of  the  English  Church,  render 
it  impossible  to  resist  the  suspicion,  if  not  the  conviction,  that  they 
have  been  fabricated,  at  least  for  the  most  part,  under  the  name  of 
that  valuable  witness  and  eminent  martyr,  purely  out  of  subserv- 
iency to  a  favorite  theory.  Let  them,  however,  be  taken  as  genu- 
ine. The  strongest  passages  in  favor  of  prelacy  are  the  following : 
He  says,  the  deacon  "  is  subject  to  the  presbyters,  as  to  the  law 
of  Jesus  Christ" — "  the  presbyters  j9/'£'s*<:Z<3  in  the  jDlace  of  the 
councils  of  the  apostles."^  "  Be  ye  subject  to  your  presbyters  as 
to  the  apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope  :"§  "  Let  all  reverence 
the  presbyters  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God,  and  college  of  apostles  :"| 
"Being  subject  to  your  hisliop  as  to  the  command  of  God ;  and 
so  likewise  to  the  presbytery."^  Again:  "Let  no  man  do  any 
thing  of  what  belongs  to  the  Church,  separately  from  the  bishops. 
Let  the  Eucharist  be  looked  upon  as  well  established,  which  is 
either  offered  by  the  bishop,  or  by  him  to  whom  the  bishop  has 
given  his  consent.  Wheresoever  the  bishop  shall  appear,  there  let 
the  people  be  also ;  as  where  Jesus  Christ  is,  there  is  the  Catholic 
Church.  It  is  not  lawful  without  the  bishop,  neither  to  baptize, 
nor  to  celebrate  the  holy  communion ;  but  whatsoever  he  shall 
approve  of,  that  is  also  pleasing  unto  God ;  that  so  whatever  is 
(done,  ma}-  be  sure  and  well  done." 

Now,  after  allowing  the  utmost  that  can  be  justly  claimed  in 
behalf  of  the  sujyeriority  of  bishops  over  presbyters  from  these 
passages,  there  is  no  ground  for  the  inference,  that  that  superiority 
is  founded  in  divine  riglit.  A^iewed  as  an  ecclesiastical  arrange- 
ment predicated  of  expediency,  all  that  can  be  said  of  the  above 
bishops  of  Ignatius  is,  that  they  exercised  the  functions  of  the 
"  primus  presbyter,"  or  sujyerintendent  of,  Clemens  Eomanus. 
(See  1,  Clemens  Eomanus,  opposite.) 

3.  Justin  Martye.  About  a.d.  155.  In  his  Apology,  from 
chapter  85  to  88  inclusive,  he  six  times  uses  the  title  nQoeorcjg,  to 
denote  the  p}v side }it  of  the  Christian  assembly.  Neither  the  term 
bishop,  nor  presbyter,  is  used  at  all.  Beeves  (a  prelatist),  his  trans- 
lator, allows  the  term  to  denote  the  same  as  the  ^^prohati  seni- 
ores'''  of  Tertullian;**   the  ma^oves  natu  of  Cyrian  ;f  f   and  the 

♦Epistles,  sec.  54.  ■{•  Cave's  Lives  of  the  Fathers. 

X  Epistle  to  the  Magnesians.  4  Epistle  to  the  Trallians. 

H  Same  Epistle. 

1"  Epistle  to  the  Smymians.  From  Archbishop  Wake's  translation. 
**  Apol.,  c.  32.  tt  Epistles,  75. 


414 

ngoearuTeg  ttq£oPvteqol,  or  presiding  presbyters,  of  Paul  (1  Tim, 
4  :  17) ;  that  is,  that  they  were  all  one  and  the  smne.  "  Pres- 
byter," says  Bishop  Jewel,  *'  is  expounded  in  Latin  by  natu  ma- 
jor ;^^*  proof,  that  Tcrtullian,  Cyrian,  and  Paul,  all  mean  presby- 
ters^ the  Trpoearw^-  of  Justin,  and  to  whom,  as  presiding,  not  over 
other  ministers^  but  over  the  people^  he  assigns  the  ordinary  func- 
tions of  pastor  of  the  flock. 

4.  Iren^eus.  About  A.D.  184.  Claimed  also  by  prelatists  as 
another  stronghold.  Their  quotations  of  him  would  make  him 
the  advocate  of  a  succession,  j/wr<3  divino^  by  lishops  alone.  But, 
so  tar  from  this,  we  shall  show,  that  Irenteus  not  only  iiscs  the 
terms  presbyter  and  bishop  promiscuously,  as  constituting  the 
same  order^  but  that  the  t7'ue  apostolical  succession  is  continued 
through  them.  We  admit  that  in  chapter  third  of  Lib.  *3,  he 
speaks  explicitly  of  a  succession  by  bishops.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  speaking  of  several  of  the  bishops  of  Eome  in  a  letter  to 
Victor — namely,  Anicetus,  Puis,  Ilyginus,  Thelesphorus,  and 
Sixtus — he  calls  them  in  three  different  places,  presbyters^  and 
NOT  bishops.  Of  the  claim  of  prelatists,  therefore,  to  impartiality 
and  fairness  in  their  dealings  with  this  writer,  we  shall  leave  the 
reader  to  judge,  when  he  shall  have  read  the  following.  Alluding 
to  some  who  had  resorted  to  tradition  in  the  place  of  Scripture  to 
support  their  errors,  he  says :  "But  when  we  appeal  to  that  tradi- 
tion which  has  been  preserved  to  us,  the  successio7is  of  pkesby- 
TEKS  in  the  churches — quae  per  successiones  pkesbyterorum  in 
ecclesiis  custoditur — they  presume  they  are  Aviser,  not  only  than 
the  presbyters,  but  even  than  the  apostles,  and  that  they  have 
found  the  truth  in  a  purer  form. "f  Again:  "Wherefore  obedi- 
ence ought  to  be  rendered  to  those  who  are  presbyters  in  the 
Church,  who  have,  as  we  have  shown,  successio7i  from  the  apos- 
tles, and  who,  with  the  succession  of  their  Eiyiscopacy^  have  a 
sure  deposit  of  the  truth  divinely  granted  to  them  according  to  the 
good  pleasure  of  our  heavenly  Father.":};  Another :  "Now  those 
who  are  by  many  received  as  presbyters.^  yet  serving  their  own 
lusts,  etc.,  J3ut  being  puffed  up  with  the  chief  seats  {principalis 
concessio)^  use  others  v.dth  contumely,  and  say  to  themselves, 
'  None  see  the  evils  we  do  in  secret ;'  these  are  reproved  by  the 
Lord,  etc.  From  all  such  we  ought  to  depart,  and  to  cleave  to 
those  who  preserve,  as  we  have  said,  the  DOCTRINE  of  the 
apostles,  and,  along  with  their  order  of  presbyter,  maintain 
sound  words,"  etc.§   .Pretty  fair  Presbyterianism,  this  1 

5.  Tertullian,  A.D,  198.  In  his  treatise,  De  Baptismo,  he 
says  :  "  The  highest  priest,  who  is  the  bishop,  has  the  right  of  ad- 
ministering baptism.     Then  the  presbyters  and  deacons,  yet  not 

*  Defence  of  the  Apology,  Part  6,  p.  .527,  folio  edition,  1609. 

t  Lib.  3.  c.  2.  t  Lib.  4,  c.  43.  §  Lib.  4,  c.  44. 


415 

without  the  authority  of  the  bishop,  because  of  the  lionor  of  the 
Church.-^  Decisive,  say  prelatists,  for  episcopacy,  by  Divine 
Eight.  Not  so.  Tertullian,  as  we  shall  see,  from  the  other  part 
of  the  same  passage,  (and  which  these  writers  generally  omit,) 
places  the  whole  upon  the  ground  of  a  mere  ecclesiastical  regula- 
tion. "  Otherwise,^^  says  he,  "  the  r/^/<^  belongs  even  to  layisien. — 
Alioquin  etiam  laicus  jus  est. — However  the  laiti/  ought  especially 
to  submit  humbly  and  modestly  to  the  discipline  and  ecclesiaatical 
regulations  of  the  Church  in  these  matters,  and  not  assunae  the 
office  of  the  bishop,"  etc.*  And  again.  In  his  Apology,  whilst 
describing  the  order  and  government  of  the  Church,  he  says, 
"  Pra^sident  probati  quique  seniores,"f  etc.  'Approved  elders  or 
p-eshyters  preside  amongst  us ;  having  received  that  honor,  not  by 
money,  but  by  the  suffrages  of  their  brethren.":};  These  passages  of 
Tertullian,  then,  taken  together,  and  what  becomes  of  the  theory 
of  episcopacy  by  divine  right,  so  confidently  built  upon  them  by 
prelatists  ? 

6.  Origen.  Between  a.d.  204-250.  The  following  passages 
will  show,  that  presbyters  and  bishops,  with  Origen,  were  the 
same  order  ;  that  they  ruled  the  Church  in  common,  the  presby- 
ters presiding  toith  the  bishops,  the  latter,  bearing  that  name,  occu- 
pying the  higher  chair,  only  as  an  ecclesiastical  arrangement. 
"Dost  thou  think,"  says  he,  "  that  they  who  are  honored  with  the 
priesthood,  and  glory  in  their  priestly  order,  walk  according  to 
that  order  ?  In  like  manner,  dost  thou  suppose  the  deacons  also 
walk  according  to  their  order  ?  Whence  then  is  it  that  we  often 
hear  reviling  men  exclaim,  '  What  a  bishop !'  '  What  a  presby- 
ter !'  or  '  What  a  deacon !  is  this  fellow.'  Do  not  these  things 
arise  from  hence,  that  the  priest  or  the  deacon,^^  [tiuo  orders  only,] 
"  had,  in  something,  gone  contrary  to  his  order,  and  had  done 
something  against  the  priestly,  or  the  Levitical  order  ?"  §  Again. 
"  Imagine  the  ecclesiastical  order,  sitting  in  the  seats  or  chairs  of 
bishops  and  presbyters.  She  [the  Queen  of  Sheba]  "  saw  also  the 
array  of  servants  standing  to  wait  in  their  service.  This  (as  it 
seems  to  me)  speaks  of  the  order  of  deacons  standing  to  attend  on 
divine  service."  ||  And  again.  "  We  of  the  clerical  order,  who 
preside  over  you."^  Origen  was  himself  no  more  than  a  presbyter. 
Further  comment  would  be  superfluous. 

7.  Cyprian.  About  a.d.  248-258.  A  great  and  good  man, 
and  a  martyr  to  the  cause  of  Christ.     But,  though  prelatists,  from 

*  De  Baptism,  c.  17. 

t  '■'  Seniores  are,  in  the  Greek  language,  called  Presbyters.'"  (Rom.  Cabbassantius, 
Notitia  Eceles.  p.  53).  UocaiivTipoi,  senior;  (Scapula).  \lo:<TiJvri(j>s,  presbyfc-^  senior; 
(Schre villus)  ;  "rp'a/?ur;<);s,  id  est,  semot- ;  (Suicer) .  And  Reeves,  a  rigid  Churchman, 
says  :  "  The  presiding  elders  here,  are  undoui)tedly  the  same  with  the  npotcTun  m  Justin 
Martyr."      (See  3,  Justin  Martyr.) 

t  Apology,  cap.  39.  §  Homily  2,  in  Numb. 

II  Homily  2,  in  Cant.  IT  Homily  7,  on  Jer. 


416 

his  somewliat  inflated  views  of  the  dignity  of  a  bishop,  may  quote 
him  with  additional  confidence  compared  with  the  other  fathers ; 
yet  it  should  not  be  overlooked,  that  Tertullian  was  his  master. 
Accordingly,  writing  to  \i\s  presbyters  and  deacons  during  his  seclu- 
sion from  the  rage  of  his  persecutors,  he  says  :  "  I  beseech  you,  ac- 
cording to  your  faith  and  religion,  that  you  perform  your  own 
duties,  and  also  those  belonging  to  me,  so  that  nothing  be  wanting 
either  as  to  discipline  or  diligence."'^  Again,  having  mentioned 
matters  of  Church  government :  "I  rely  upon  your  love  and  your 
religion,  which  I  well  know,  and  by  these  letters  I  exhort  and 
commit  the  charge  to  you,  that  you  whose  presence  does  not  ex- 
pos^ you  to  such  peril,  would  perform  all  those  things  which  the 
administration  of  the  Church  requires,"f  Besides,  he  speaks  of 
*'  the  most  illustrious  clergy  presiding  with  the  bishop  over  the 
Church  ;":|:  and  he  denominates  them  "the  sacred  and  venerable 
consistory  of  his  clergy.  "§  He  also  applies  the  term  jorcepositus^ 
president,  as  well  as  pastor,  to  the  presbyters  and  bishops  ii. 
common.  And,  finally,  in  his  epistle  to  Pupian,  contending  for 
the  divine  authority  of  his  OFFICE  in  the  Church,  he  places  it  upon 
this,  that  he  Avas  a  priest,  sacerdos,  that  is,  a  presbytek. 

8.  FiRMiLiAN.  A  famous  bishop  of  Cossarea,  and  a  contem- 
porary with  Cyprian.  Eusebius  says :  "He  was  very  famous ; 
equal,  if  not  superior  authority  to  Cyprian  himself"  In  a  letter  of 
his  found  in  Cyprian's  works,  he  says  :  "  All  power  and  grace  is 
in  the  Church,  in  which  jDresbyters  preside,  and  have  the  power  of 
baptizing,  confirmation  and  ordination.  Om7iis potestas  et  gratia 
in  ecclesia  constituta  sit,  ubi  pk.esident  majokes  natu,  qui  et 
haptizandi,  et  manum  iiwponendi.^  et  ordinandi,  possident  potesta- 
temP 

9.  Ambrose.  About  a.d.  370.  In  addition  to  what  we  have 
already  quoted  from  this  father,  we  shall  onlv  add  the  following  : 
"  The  presbyter  and  bishop  had  one  and  the  same  ordination. '''I 

10.  Chrysostom.  Between  870-407.  In  his  commentarj^  on 
1  Timothy  3,  he  says :  "  Paul,  speaking  about  bishops  and 
their  ordination,  what  they  ought  to  possess,  and  from  what  they 
must  abstain,  having  omitted  (1  Timothy  3)  the  order  of  presby- 
ters, he  passes  on  to  that  of  deacons.  Why  so,  I  ask  ?  Because 
the  difference  between  the  bishop  and  the  presbyter  is  almost 
nothing.  For  the  care  of  the  churches  is  committed  to  presby- 
ters, and  the  qualifications  Avhicli  the  apostle  requires  in  a  bishop, 
he  requires  in  a  presbyter  also,  being  above  them  solely  in  the 
performance  of  ordination;  and  this  is  the  only  thing  they,  the 
bishops,  seem  to  have  more  than  presbyters."     A  rather  rickety 

*  Epist.  5.  t  Epist.  6.  \  Epist.  55.  §  Epist.  55,  p.  107. 

11  Conimentavy  in  Ephesiane,  cap.  4. 


417 

foundation,  this,  for  the  support  of  Episcopacy  as  alleged  to  rest 
upon  divine  right.  They,  the  bishops,  "seem  to  have,"  etc.  Chry- 
sostora  says  not  one  word  respecting  this  ordaining  power  of  the 
bishop  as  founded  in  divine  riglit.  He  speaks  of  it  simply  as  a 
fact,  as  it  existed  in  his  day,  agreeably  to  that  ecclesiastical 
arrangement  which,  to  prevent  divisions  and  discord  in  the 
Church,  had  been  j^reviously  introduced.  We  shall  now  introduce 
to  the  reader  one  other  of  these  "  early  fathers." 

11.  Jerome,  of  Rome.  He  flourished  between  a.d.  363-420. 
He  is  acknowledsred  to  be  "  the  most  learned  of  the  Latin  fathers." 
St.  Augustine  says  of  him  :  '■'■JSfemo  noimnmn  sciv^t  quod  liter o- 
nynius  ignoravit — Jerome  knew  every  thing  known  by  man." 
We  introduce  him  into  this  23lace,  on  account  of  his  being  held,  in 
his  writings,  rightly  to  interjjret  the  sentiments  of  his  more  ancient 
predecessors.  Bingham,  a  high  authority  with  Churchmen,  says : 
"  St.  Jerome  will  be  allowed  to  speak  the  sense  of  the  ancients." 
Let  us  then  hear  him.  "Presbyters  and  bishops  were  formerly  the 
same.  And  before  the  devil  incited  men  to  make  divisions  in  reli- 
gion, and  one  was  led  to  say,  'I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos,' 
churches  were  governed  by  the  common  council  of  the  pkesbytees. 
But  afterivards^  when  every  one  in  baptizing  rather  made  prose- 
lytes to  himself  than  to  Christ,  it  was  every  where  decreed  that 
one  person^  elected  from  the  rest  of  the  presbyters  in  each  church, 
should  be  placed  over  the  others;  that,  the  chief  care  of  the  church 
devolving  upon  him,  the  seeds  of  division  might  be  taken  away. 
Should  au}^  one  suppose  this  opinion,  namely,  that  bishops  and 
presbyters  are  the  same^  and  that  one  is  the  denomination  of  age, 
and  tiie  other  of  office.,  is  not  determined  by  the  Scriptures,  but  is 
only  a  ijrirate  opinion,  let  him  read  over  again  the  apostle's 
words  to  the  Philippians,  saying :  '  Paul,  and  Timotheus,  the  ser- 
vants of  Jesus  Christ  which  are  at  Philippi,  with  the  hishops  and 
deacons:  grace  be  unto  j^ou,  and  peace,'  etc.  Philippi  is  one  of 
the  cities  of  Macedonia ;  and  certainly,  as  to  those  who  are  now  es- 
teemed bishops,  not  more  than  one  at  a  time  can  be  in  one  and  cthe 
same  city.  But  because  bishops  at  that  time  were  called  the  ^me 
as  presbyters,  therefore  the  apostle  speaks  of  bishops  indifferently, 
as  being  the  same  as  presbyters.  And  here  it  should  be  carefully 
observed  how  the  apostle,  sending  for  the  ^ p/resbyters'  (in  the 
plural)  '  of  the  single  city  of  Ephesus  only,  afterwards  calls  the 
same  persons  bishops.  (Acts  20  :  17,  28.)  Pie  who  receives  the 
Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Hebrews.,  there  finds  the  care  of  the  Church 
divided  equally  amongst  many  :  '  Obey  them  which  have  the  rxde 
over  you,"  etc.  And  Peter,  who  received  his  name  from  the 
firmness  of  his  faith,  says  in  his  Epistle :  '  The  presbyters,  who 
are  among  you,  I  exhort,  who  am  also  a  presbyter,'  etc.  '  Feed 
the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you,  taking  the  oversight  thereof 

(1)  Heb.  13  :  17. 

27 


418 

{ismoKOTrovvTeg,  that  is,  superintending  it),  not  by  constraint,  but 

willingly."     These  passages  we  have  brought  forward  to  show, 

that,  WITH  TiiK  ANCIENTS,  PEESBYTERS  WfiRE  THE   SAME 

AS  BISIIOPS.    But  that  the  roots  of  dissension  might  be  plucked 

.p,  a  usage  yradually  took  place  that  the  chief  care  should  devolve 

.pon  ONE.     Therefore,  as  the  presbyters  know  that  it  is  by  THE 

)[JSTOM  of  the  Church  {eoclesice  consuetudine)  that  they  are  to 

•e  subject  to  him  who  is  placed  oveV  them ;  so  let  the  bishops 

:now  that  they  are  above  presbyters  rather  by  custom  than  by 

',ivine  appointment^  and  that  the  Chui'ch  ought  to  be  ruled  in 

ommon." 

As  we  have  said,  we  leave  the  reader  to  draw  his  own  inferences 
^rom  the  preceding  extracts,  as  derived  from  the  writings  of  the 
"  early  fathers,"  in  support  of  the  proposition,  that  the  office  and 
functions  of  elders  or  presbyters  and  bishops,  were,  from  the  be- 
ginning, based  on  the  fraternal  platform  of  perfect  equality. 


SECTION   III. 

Subject  continued. — IV.  The  same  corroborated  by  the  testimony  of  all  the  Christian 
Churches  in  the  world. — The  African,  Greek,  Western  or  Roman,  Lutheran,  Ger- 
man Reformed,  French,  Waldensian,  Scotch,  and  Dissenting. 

We  now  proceed  to  show  that  the  same  doctrine  is  borne  out, 

lY. — By  the  testimony  of  all  tlie  Christian  Churches  in  the 
world. 

1.  The  African  Church.  See  Tertullian,  as  above,  who  was 
one  of  the  most  illustrious  African  fathers.  Gregory  iSTazianzen, 
speaking  in  his  oration  upon  Athanasius,  about  the  importance  of 
the  See  of  Alexandria,  says,  it  is  "  as  though  you  should  say  that 
its  bishop  is  bishop  of  the  whole  worlds 

2.  The  Greek  Church.  See  Firmilian,  as  above.  So,  the 
Council  of  Ancyra,  third  century ;  epistle  of  the  Council  of  Nice ; 
and  Theodoret,  fifth  century. 

3.  The  Western  Church,  or  Church  of  Eome.  Mr.  Johnson, 
the  translator  of  the  canons  of  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches,  and 
a  learned  prelatist,  affirms  that  the  Church  of  Rome  never  main- 
tained the  order  of  bishops  by  divine  right.  He  says :  "  That 
opinion,  that  the  order  of  priests  and  bishops  was  the  same,  pre- 
vailed in  the  Church  of  Rome  for  four  or  five  ages  (centuries)  be- 
fore the  Reformation  !"*  The  Council  of  Trent,  though  insisting 
on  a  distinction  between  presbyters  and  bishoj^s,  yet  strenuously 
opposed  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  bishops.f 

4.  The  Lutheran  Church.      She  never  maintained  the  divine 

*  Clergyman's  Vade  Mecum,  Vol.  II.,  Preface,  54. 

t  See  our  remarks  on  this  subject,  in  the  Address  to  the  Reader. 


419 

rigid  of  bishops  over  presbyters,  but  taught  aud  practiced  the  con- 
trary, Haynes  quotes  Luther  as  saying,  in  reference  to  the  visita- 
tion of  the  churches"  in  Saxony,  "  We  are  visitors,  that  is,  bishops." 
Now,  Luther  was  no  more  than  a.  presbyter.  Yet  we  have  the  fol- 
lowing account  of  his  having  ordained  a  bishop  : — "  About  this 
time  (a.d.  ^5-12),  the  bishopric  of  Neoburg,  by  Sala,  was  void ; 
there  iSTicholas  Arasdorf,  a  divine,  born  of  a  noble  family,  was  in- 
stalled by  Luther,"  etc.*  That  is,  he  was  "  ordained  bishop)  by 
Luther :  Nicholas  Medler,  the  pastor  of  Neoburg,  George  Spalatinus, 
pastor  of  Aldenburg,  and  Wolfgang  Steinius,  another  pastor,  join- 
ing with  Luther  in  the  iryiposition  of  hands. ''''\  "  The  gosjjel,"  says 
one  of  the  Lutheran  articles,  "gives  to  those  that  are  set  over  the 
churches,  a  command  to  teach  the  gospel,  to  remit  sins,  to  admin- 
ister the  sacraments,  and  jurisdiction  also,  and  by  the  confession 
of  all,  even  our  adversaries,  'tis  manifest,  that  this  power  is,  by 
divine  right,  common  to  all  that  are  set  over  the  churches,  whether 
they  be  caWedi  pastors^  or  presbyters^  or  bishojjs." 

5.  The  German  Eeformed  Church.  This  Church  adopted  the 
Helvetic  Confession  of  Faith.  The  31st  article  contains  this  state- 
ment : — "  As  regards  the  ministers  of  the  divine  word,  they  have 
every  where  the  sayne  power  and  authority.''^ 

6.  The  French  Church.  The  pastors  aud  seniors  of  this  church, 
in  the  national  council  of  Yitry,  a.d.  1682,  adopted  the  same  con- 
fession, and  with  it,  of  course,  the  81st  article,  as  above. 

7.  The  Waldenses.  Prior  to  the  year  1467,  the  Waldenses,  on 
the  subject  of  the  ministry,  hold  the  following  language : — "  They 
who  are  pastors  ought  to  preach  to  the  people,  and  feed  them  often 
with  divine  doctrine,  and  chastise  the  sinners  with  discipline." 
Written  a.d.  1100.  "  Feeding  the  flock  of  God  not  for  filthy  lucre's 
sake,  nor  as  having  superiority  over  the  clergy."  "  As  touching 
orders,  we  ought  to  hold  that  order  is  called  the  power  which  God 
gives  to  man,  duly  to  administer  and  dispense  unto  the  Church 
the  word  and  sacraments.  But  we  find  nothing  in  the  Scriptures 
touching  such  orders  as  they"  (the  papists)  "  pretend,  but  only  the 
custom  of  the  Church.";]:  Speaking  of  "  pastors"  without  any  dis- 
tinction, in  an  ancient  MS.,  they  say :  "  TFe^jcwtors  do  meet  together 
once  every  year,  to  determine  our  affairs  in  a  general  council. 
Amongst  other  powers  and  abilities  which  God  hath  given  to  his 
servants"  [i.e.,  the  pastors'],  "  he  hath  given  authority  to  choose 
leaders  to  rule  the  peojjle,  and  to  ordain  elders  (i^resbyters)  in  their 
charges,"  etc.,  agreeably  to  the  direction  to  Titus,  "  For  this  cause 
left  I  thee  in  Crete,"  etc.  The  monk  Eeinerus,  who  wrote  of  them 
a.d.  1250,  says :  "  They  considered  prelates  to  be  but  scribes  and 
pharisees;    that  the  Pope  and   all  the  bishops   were   murderers, 

*  Haynes's  Transl.  of  Melchior  Adam's  Life  of  Luther,  4to.,  Lond.  1041,  pp.  71,  83, 
84,  102. 

t  Melchior  Adam's  Life  of  Amsdorf. 

t  Treatise  on  Antichrist,  a.d.  1220.  .    ■ 


420 

because  of  the  wars  they  waged; — that  the}''  were  not  to  obey 
the  bishops,  but  God  only ; — that  in  the  Church  no  one  was  greater 
than  another  ; — that  they  hated  the  very  name  of  prelate,  as  pope, 
BISHOP,"  etc. 

Stephen,  through  whom  the  Moravians  allege  to  have  derived 
their  E])iscopacy,  in  the  history  of  him  as  given  by  Perrin,  is  styled 
A  simply  "  an  elderly  man,^^  who  was  burnt  at  the  stake  during  a  violent 
'a.  •.*  perseculion  of  that  people.  Indeed,  from  their  hatred  of  the  very 
name  of  prelate,  the  title  of  hishoj)  seems  to  have  been  entirely  foreign 
to  their  ecclesiastical  vocabulary.  Evidently,  it  should  have  been 
translated,  "  one  Stephen,  a  presbyter,  or  elder."  The  English 
Church,  whom  the  Moravians  are  pleased  to  call  "  their  only  Epis- 
copal sister,"  does  not  acknowledge  the  relationship  ! 

8.  Of  the  theories  of  the  Scotch  and  Dissenting  Churches  on 
the  subject  of  the  equality  of  presbyters  and  bishops,  being  "  known 
and  read  of  all  men,"  it  is  unnecessary  to  enlarge  by  a  reference  to 
proof 


SECTION   IV. 

Subject  continued. — V.  Additional  testimony  from  the  greatest  divines  of  nnodem 
tinnes,  since  the  period  of  the  Continental  and  Anglican  Reformations. — Wickliffe, 
Erasmus,  Cranmer,  Calvin,  Beza,  Melancthon,  Blondell,  M.  Flaccius  Illyricus, 
Claude,  Bochart,  Grotius,  Vitringa,  Mosheim,  Suicer,  Schleusner,  Archbishoj) 
Usher,  etc. 

To- the  preceding  we  now  add, 

V.  The  testimony  of  the  greatest  divines  of  modern  times,  since  the 
period  of  the  Continental  and  Anglican  Reformation.  These  will  be 
found  to  bear  a  testimony  to  the  fact  for  which  we  contend, 
equally  emphatic  with  that  of  the  early  fathers, — Clemens  Eoma- 
nus,  Ignatius,  Justin  Martyr,  Irenasus,  Tertullian,  Origen,  Cyrian, 
Firmilian,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  and  Jerome,  of  whom  the  learned 
Stillingfleet  says  :  "  I  believe,  upon  the  strictest  inquiry,  Medina's 
judgment  will  prove  true,  that  Hieron,  Austin,  Ambrose,  Sedulius, 
Primasius,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Theophylact,  were  all  of 
Atriush*  judgment  as  to  the  identity  of  both  name  and  order  of 
bishops  and  presbyters,  in  the  Primitive  Church,  but  here  lay  the 
diiference :  Aerius  from  thence  proceeded  to  separation  from  the 
bishops  and  their  churches  because  they  loere  (prelatical)  bishopsy-\ 
Eight  ! 

*  Irenicum,  p.  276,  2d  ed.,  16G2. 

+  Aerius  was  a  Presbyter  (orthodox)  under  Eustathius,  Bishop  of  Sebaste  in 
Armenia,  a.d.  3GS.  He  steinly  opposed  ''^  the  pre-eminence'^  of  bishops  over  presbyters, 
which  had  obtained  in  the  Church  in  his  time,  contending  that  there  was  no  distinction 
of  rank  or  office  between  them.  He  also  opposed  the  prevailing  practices  of  fasting 
and  praying  f  )r  the  dead. 


421 

1.  WiCKLiFFE.     Having  already  quoted  Luther  on  this  subject, 
we  begin  with  Wickhlle,  who  says :  "  I  boldly  assert  one  thing, 
viz.,  that  in  the  primitive  Church,   or  in  the  time  of  Paul,  two 
orders  of  the  clergy  were  sufficient,  that  is,  a  ;priest  and  a  deacon.       -  ^i^i 
In  like  manner,  I  affirm,  that  in  the  time  of  Paul,  the  presbyter       *^^^' 
and  bishop  wci'c  names  of  the  same  ajJiceP     Jerome  is  quoted  in 

proof* 

2.  Eras:\ius.  "  Anciently  none  Avere  called  priests  but  bishops 
and  presbyters,  who  tvere  the  same^  but  afterward  presbyters  were 
distinguished  from  the  priest"f  (or  bishop). 

3.  CRAN.MER.  "  The  bishops  and  priests  (presbyters)  were  at 
one  time,  and  Avere  no  two  things,  but  both  one  in  the  beginning 
of  Christ's  religion,":}: 

4.  Calvix.§  "The  reason  why  I  have  used  the  terms  bishops, 
and  presbyters,  and  pastors,  and  ministers,  promiscuousl}^,  is,  be- 
cause the  Scriptures  do  the  same  ;  for  they  give  the  title  of  bishops 
to  all  persons  whatsoever  who  were  ministers  of  the  Gospel. "| 

5.  Beza.  "  The  authority  of  all  pastors  is  equal  amongst  them- 
selves, so  also  their  office  is  the  same."^ 

6.  MELANCTHoisr.  "  They  who  taught  in  the  Church,  and  bap- 
tized, and  administered  the  Lord's  Supper,  were  called  bishops 
ov  presbyters  ;  and  those  were  called  deacons  y^ho  distributed  alms 
in  the  Church,"**  etc. 

7.  Blonde r.L  and  Dalleus.  "Episcopacy,  as  no ?y  distinguished 
from  presbyters,  according  to  the  custom  of  the  Church  fkom  the 
THIRD  CENTUKY,  is  uot  of  apostolical,  but  merely  of  human  insti- 
tution."ff 

8.  M.  Flaccius  Illykicus.  Treating  of  the  time  of  the  apostles, 
he  says  :  "  A  presbyter  was  ilien  the  same  as  a  bishop."  Speaking 
of  the  primitive  Church,  he  says :  "  The  bishop  was  the  first  pres- 
byter among  the  presbyters  of  each  church,  and  this  was  done  for 
the  sake  of  order, ":{::{:  etc. 

9.  Claude.  "  As  to  those  who  were  ordained  by  mere  priests 
(presbj^ters),  can  the  author  of  the  Prejudices  be  ignorant  that  the 
distinction  of  a  bishop  and  a  priest,  or  minister,  as  if  they  had 
two  different  offices,  is  not  only  a  thing  that  they  cannot  prove  out 
of  the  Scriptures,  but  that  even  contradicts  the  express  words  of 
Scripture,  where  bishops  and  priests  are  the  names  of  oyie  and  the 
same  office^  from  whence  it  follows  that  the  priests  have,  by  their 

*  Vaughan's  Life  of  WicklifFe,  p.  100,  Vol.  II. 

t  Scholia  ill  Epist.  Hieron.  ad  Nepot,  fol.  6,  Vol.  I.,  Ed.  151 

X  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation. 

§  See  Appendix.  B. 

II  Calv.  Inst.,  Lib.  IV.,  sec.  8,  p.  8. 

^  De  Eccles.,  cap.  29.     See  also  address  To  the  Reader. 

**  Loc.  Com.  limo  .  Basil,  1521. 

tt  Viil.  Beverigii  Code.x  Can.  Eccles.  Prim.  Vind.  Proem. 

it  Catalog.  Test.  Veritat.  Vol.  I.,  p.  84. 


422 

first  institution,  a  right  to  confer  ordination  that  cannot  be  taken 
from  them  by  mere  human  rules."* 

10.  BociiART.  "  If  the  question  be  as  to  the  antiquity,  I  am 
plainly  of  opinion,  with  Jerome,  that  in  the  apostles's  age  there 
was  no  difference  between  bishops  and  presbyters,  and  that  the 
churches  were  governed  by  the  common  council  of  the  presbyters. 
Therefore  J9r6-6%ters  are  moke  ancient  than  iis/io^s,"f  etc. 

11.  Gkotius.  "  ETnoKOTTT],  or  the  office  of  a  bishop,  signifies  in- 
spection or  oversight  of  any  kind.  The  inspectors,  or  those  who 
preside  over  the  church,  are  presbyters.  The  chief  of  these  presby- 
ters, AFTERWARDS,  by  way  of  excellence,  began  to  be  called  lisliop^ 
as  is  evident  from  those  canons  which  are  termed  apostolical 
canons  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  .in  Tertulliau,  and  others.":}: 

12.  YiTRiNGA.  "  All  the  rulers  or  governors  of  the  Church  of 
Ephesus  were  equally,  and  without  the  least  difference,  called 
bishops,  presbyters  and  pastors."  (Acts  20  :  17,  etc.)  These,  he 
says,  "  according  to  the  style  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  are  names 
distinguishing  one  and  the  same  order  of  men  ;  they  are  distinguished 
neither  in  the  kind  of  their  order,  nor  their  office.  This  position 
will  stand,  I  am  persuaded,  as  long  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  and 
their  Epistles  shall  be  read  without  prejudice."§ 

13.  MosnEiM.  "  The  rulers  of  the  Church  were  called  either 
presbyters  or  bishops,  which  two  titles  in  the  New  Testament 
undoubtedly  applied  to  the  same  order  of  ?/iew."|| 

14.  S DICER.  "  At  the  first,  therefore,  all  presbyters  were  equally 
over  the  fliock,  and  had  none  over  themselves,  for  they  were  called 
bishops,  and  had  Episcopal  power,"!"  etc. 

15.  ScHLEDSNER.  "  FoT  at  length,  after  the  apostolic  age,  that 
difference  was  introduced  between  bishops  and  presbyters,  that  the 
bishops  should  have  the  greater  dignity,  as  Suicerus  rightly  states 
in  his  Thesaurus  Ecclesiasticus."** 

16.  Archbishop  Usher.  "I  asked  him  (Archbishop  Usher)  also 
his  judgment  about  the  validity  of  presbyters' s  ordination,  which  he 
asserted,  and  told  me  that  the  king  (Charles  I.)  asked  him,  at  the 
Isle  of  Wight,  wherever  he  found  in  antiquity,  that  presbyters 
alone  ordained  any  ?  And  that  he  answered,  I  can  show  yoiir 
majesty  more,  even  where  presbyters  alone  successively  ordained  bishops  ; 
and  instanced  in  Hierome's  words, — Epist.  ad  Evagrium, — of  the 
presbyters  of  Alexandria  choosing  and  making  their  own  bishops, 
from  the  days  of  Mark  till  Ileraclas  and  Dionysius."-|'f 

*  Defence  of  the  Reformation,  Part  IV.,  p.  95. 

t  Abridg.  of  Mr.  James  Owen's  Plea,  p.  39. 

j  Annot.  in  I.  Tim.  3  :  1. 

§  De  Synag.  Vet.  Lib.  2,  c.  2,  pp.  447  and  485. 

II  Ecclesiastical  History,  Vol.  I.,  p.  lOL 

H  Thesaur.  Eccles.  Tom.  L,  col.  1180. 

**  Lex.  Gr  in  Nov.  Test.  Sub.  Loc.  voce  sTriaKomg. 

ft  Life  of  Baxter,  by  Sylvester.     FoL,  Lib.  L,  part  2,  sec.  G3,  p.  206. 


423 


SECTION    V. 

Subject  continued. — VI.  Testimony  of  the  greatest  divines  of  modern  times,  since  the 
Continental  and  Anglican  Reformations. — Do.  of  the  Anglican  Reformers  them- 
selves.— Sanctioned  by  royal  authority. — Bishop  Burnet. — Rev.  A.  B.  Chapin's 
attempt  to  escape  therefrom. — Failure  of. — Conclusion. 

We  add,  in  conclusion,  and  as  further  confirmatory  of  the  truth, 
of  the  principle  here  advocated,  that  it  formed  the  basis  of  the 
theology,  on  this  subject, 

VI.    Of  the  Anglican  Reformers  themselves. 

1.  We  here  in  the  first  place,  refer  the  reader  to  the  opinions, 
on  this  subject,  as  expressed  by  Wicklifie  and  Cranmer,  the 
archbishops  of  Canterbury,  as  given  on  page  421.  We  refer 
him, 

2.  To  "  A  Declaration  made  of  the  functions  and  Divine  Institu- 
tion of  bishops  and  priests, — an  original"  document.     It  says — 

"  As  touching  the  sacraments  of  the  Holy  Orders,  we  will  that 
all  bishops  and  preachers  shall  instruct  and  teach  our  people  com- 
mitted by  us  unto  their  spiritual  charge," 

First.  How  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  instituted  certain  min- 
isters or  oificers,  with  spiritual  power  to  order  and  consecrate 
others  to  the  same  order,  etc.  "  Itera^'^  which  sets  forth,  that  this 
office,  ministration,  power  and  authority,  is  "  restrained  unto 
those  certain  limits  and  ends  for  the  which  the  same  was  appointed 
by  Qod^s  ordinance^''  etc.  '''■Item,  that  this  office,  this  power  and 
authority,  was  committed  and  given  hy  Christ  and  his  apostles  unto 
certain  persons  only,  that  is  to  say,  unto  priests  OR  BISHOPS,  whom 
they  did  elect,  call,  and  admit  thereunto,  by  their  prayer  and  im- 
position of  hands."  And,  having  affirmed,  that  "the  invisible 
gift  or  grace  conferred"  by  that  act  "  is  nothing  else  but  the  power, 
the  offices,  and  the  authority  before  mentioned ;"  and  alluding  to 
the  introduction  into  the  Church  of  many  ceremonies  and  orders 
connected  with  "  the  Temple  of  the  Jews,"  the  above  "  Declara- 
tion" adds  :  "  Yet  the  truth  is,  that  in  the  New  Testament  there  is 
no  mention  made  of  any  degrees  of  distinction  in  orders,  but  only  of 
deacons  or  ministers,  and  of  priests  or  bishops :  nor  is  there  any 
word  spoken  of  any  other  ceremony  used  in  the  confirming  of  this 
sacrament,  but  only  of  prayer,  and  the  imposition  of  the  bishop's 
hands." 

Let  it  here  be  particularly  noted,  that  this  "  Declaration"  was  set 
forth  by  "  those  who  actually  formed  the  Articles,  the  Book  of 


Thomas,  (Lord)  Cromwell,  {the  King's 

Vicar  General). 
T.  (Craumer),  Archbishop  of  Canterbury. 


of 


424 

Orders,    and  the  plan  of  the  Government  of  the  Church  of  En- 
gland," A.I).  1587  or  1538;  and  as  such,  was  signed  by 

Geoffrey  Downs. 

John  Skip. 

Cuthbcrt  Alarshall. 

Marmaduke  Waldeby. 

Robert  Oking. 

Nicholas  Heyth. 

Kalph  Bradford. 

Richard  Smith. 

Simeon  Matthew. 

John  Prynn. 

Wm.  Buckmaster. 

William  Maj^e. 

Nicholas  Wotton. 

Richard  Cox. 

John  Edmonds. 

Tho.  Robertson. 

Thomas  Baret. 

John  Nase. 

John  Barber. 


do. 
Bishop 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 
do. 


York. 

London. 

Durham. 

Lincoln. 

Bath. 

Ely. 

Bangor. 

Salisbury. 

Hereford. 

Worcester. 

Rochester. 

Chichester. 


Edward, 
John, 

Cuthbert, 

John, 

John, 

Thomas, 

John, 

Nicholas, 

Edward, 

Hugo, 

John, 

Richard, 

Richard  Wolman, 

John  Bell. 

William  Clyffe. 

Robert  Aldridge. 

(Some  other  hands  there  are  that  cannot  be  read.) 
Doctors  of  LaAv  and  Doctors  of  Divinity.* 

3.  Another  book  was  published,  called  a  "  Declaration  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  for  necessar}^  erudition  of  a  Christian  man."  It 
was  published  by  Iktyal  Authority^  and  hence  was  usually  called 
the  King's  Book.  In  the  chapter  on  Orders,  it  expressly  de- 
clares: "  That  2>r/e.sfo  and  hishops^  BY  GOD'S  LAW,  are  one  and 
THE.  SAME  ;  and  that  the  power  of  ordination,  and  excommunication, 
belongs  equally  to  both."  This  book  was  issued  a.d.  1543, 
Burnet  derives  his  account  of  it  from  Fuller,  who  "  assures  the 
world  that  he  copies  out  of  the  Records  with  his  own  hand  what 
he  published." 

With  these  facts,  then,  under  our  eye,  what  are  we  to  think  of 
those  advocates  of  prelacy  who  deny  that  bishops  and  presbyters  are, 
by  divine  right,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England, 
ono  and  tJte  same  office  j  and  who  denythiii  ordination  by  presbyters 
is,  by  divine  institution,  equally  valid  as  that  hy  bishops?  The  mode 
adopted  in  the  drawing  up  of  these  "Declarations,"  cannot  but  en- 
title them  to  our  highest  confidence.  Not  only  was  ample  time 
given,  but  the  most  eminent  learning  of  the  age  was  engaged,  in 
their  production.  Burnet  tells  us,  that  "  the  whole  business  they 
(that  is,  those  named  in  the  above  catalogue)  were  to  consider, 
was  divided  into  so  many  heads,  which  were  proposed  as  queries, 
and  these  were  given  out  by  the  bishops  and  divines ;  and  at  a 
■fixed  time,  every  one  brought  in  his  opinion  in  writing,  on  all  the 

*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation.     Collection  of  Records,  B.  3.     Add.  No.  5. 
See  also  Applelon's  Edition,  1843,  Vol.  I.,  p.  585. 


425 

questions,"*  Several  of  tliese  opinions  arc  now  before  us — Cran- 
mer,  the  bishop  of  London ;  Dr,  liobertson ;  Dr.  Cox ;  and  Dr. 
Redmajne ;  of  ■\vliich,  that  of  Cranmer  is  a  specimen.     (See  page 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Chapin,  however,  felicitates  himself  in  having  dis- 
covered a  mode  of  escape  from  the  unpleasant  dilemma  in  which 
his  favorite  theory  of  the  so-called  divine  right  of  bishops  is  involved, 
by  the  facts  here  brought  to  light.  Having  alluded  to  the  infer- 
ences drawn  from,  and  the  use  made  of,  the  above  declarations  by 
anti-prelatists,  namely — "  that  the  English  Reformers  believed, 
and  the  Church  of  England  taught,  (1.)  that  episcopacy  did  not 
exist  by  divine  right,  that  is,  they  believed  it  to  be  a  human  insti- 
tution ;  and  (2.)  that  bishops  and  priests  are  not  different  orders 
of  clergy;  he  says:  "Now  if  these  charges  are  true,  tlie  Emjlish  Re- 
formers gave  up  one  fundamental  principle  of  primitive  order,  and 
loere,  in  fact,  Pjbesbtteriaxs,  And  if  the  Church  of  England  is 
Presbyterian,  then  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  others  have  a  right 
to  separate  from  her;  for  those  who  have  themselves  separated 
from  apostolic  order,  cannot  complain  if  others  follow  their  ex- 
ample, "f 

Now,  what,  we  ask,  is  Mr.  Chapin's  attempted  method  of  escape 
from  these  results  ?  We  answer.  Speaking  of  "  The  Institution  of 
a  Christian  Man,"  as  compiled  from  the  above  "  Declaration,"  and 
which,  he  says,  was  "  signed  by  Cranmer  and  thirty  of  the  most 
learned  of  the  clergy,"  it  established  the  Romish  doctrine  of  ''  Tran- 
substantiation,  communion  of  one  kind,  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  auri- 
cular confession,  seven  sacraments,  and  purgatory."  In  all  things 
they  proved  themselves  stanch  papists,  save  in  the  single  article 
of  the  pope's  supremacy,  and  perhaps  the  subject  of  monastic 
vows.  "  This,  therefore,"  he  adds,  "  was  the  opinion  of  these  men 
as  Romanists,  not  as  Reformers,  and  the  man  who  quotes  them 
as  such,  is  either  too  ignorant  to  write,  or  too  dishonest  to  be 
trusted."^ 

To  assert  that  for  truth,  which  is  not  founded  on  known  autho- 
rity, involves  both  ignorance  and  dishonesty.  Which  of  the 
parties  in  these  premises  is  justly  liable  to  these  imputations,  we 
leave  the  reader  to  decide,  when  he  shall  have  carefully  and  im- 
partially weighed  the  following : 

In  the  first  place.  Mr.  C,  in  order  to  fasten  upon  anti-pre- 
latists the  charge  of  ignorance  and  dishonesty,  speaking  of  "  The 
Necessary  Erudition  of  a  Christian  man,"  in  which  is  contained  the 
chapter  on  orders  in  which  it  is  declared,  "  ThoX  piriests  and  bishops, 
BY  God's  law,  are  one  and  the  same,^^  etc.,  and  which  was  put 
forth  A.D.  1543  ;  he  affirms,  that  "  With  this  book,  published  five 
years  before  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  seven  years  before  the 
compilation  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  ends  the  chain  of 

*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  I.,  p.  372. 

t  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  387.  \  lb.,  — 


426 

authorities  by  wliich  tlie  reformers  of  the  English  Church  are  to 
be  proved  Presbyterian."*  Then,  iu  proof  of  the  divine  institution 
of  episcopacy  of  three  orders,  viz.,  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons, 
as  the  doctrine  of  "  the  Church"  ajfler  that  time,  he  refers  us  to  the 
"  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"—"  Art.  19,  on  the  Church  ;"  *•  Art. 
23,"  on  "  the  Ministry,"  and  to  sundry  collects  and  prayers ;  the 
litany,  and  the  preface  to  the  ordinal,  etc.,  etc.f  Now,  in  reply 
to  the  "above,  we  remark — 

1.  It  is  conceded  by  us,  that  the  English  Reformers  did  make  a 
class  of  ministers  called  archbishops  and  bishops,  as  distinct  from 
priests  or  presbyters.  But  the  question  is,  did  they  do  this  on  the 
principle  of  the  divine  eight  of  the  order  of  bishops  as  distinct 
from,  superior  to,  and  incompatible  with,  presbyters  as  presbvters  ; 
or  did  they  do  it  as  an  ecclesiastical  arrangement,  for  the  honor  of 
the  bishops  and  the  church?  etc.  Indeed,. so  far  as  the  question  of 
divine  right  in  the  premises-  is  concerned,  we  have  the  admission  of 
Mr.  C.  himself,  that  these  Reformers,  on  the  article  of  the  perfect 
equality  of  presbyters  and  bishops,  till  within  five  years:}:  before 
the  death  of  Ileury  VIII.,  were  "Presbyterian." 

2.  The  next  important  point  to  be  determined  is,  whether  "  the 
chain  of  authorities^^  in  support  of  this  doctrine  of  the  Reformers, 
as  Mr.  C.  alleges,  "  ends"  with  the  abov.e  date  ?  So  far  from  it, 
we  affirm,  that,  so  late  as  the  time  of  the  revision  of  the  ordination 
service  under  Charles  II.,  a.d.  1662,  a  period  of  one  hundred  and 
nineteen  years  after  the  date  when  Mr.  C.  affirms  the  above  "  au- 
thorities" ended,  there  was  no  difference  in  the  words  of  ordaining 
a  bishop,  to  distinguish  his  ofice  from  that  of  a  presbyter.  The 
old  order,  as  it  stands  in  the  original  book,  remained  unrepealed. 
Indeed,  those  passages  of  the  New  Testament  that  speak  so  ex- 
pressly of  the  duties  of  scriptural  bishops,  were  made  part  of  the 
office  of  ordaining  a  priest  or  presbj'ter,  down  to  a.d.  1662.  The 
whole  process  was  founded  on  Acts  20  :  17-35,  or  in  its  place 
1  Tim.  3,  entire.  The  commission  was  based  on  Matt.  28  :  18,  and 
other  passages  out  of  John,  chaps.  10  and  20,  all  of  which  pas- 
sages they  applied  to  presbyters  in  the  solemn  act  of  setting  them 
apart  to  their  office,  clearly  showing  that  the  book  of  orders,  up  to 
1662,  bore  solemn  testimony  to  their  being,  by  divine  rigid,  scrip- 
tural bishops.  And  the  very  commission  (Matt.  28  :  18)  about 
which  prelatists  make  such  a  parade  as  belonging  solel}'  to  bishops 
as  a  distinct  order,  superior  to,  and  incompatible  with,  presbyters, 
simply  as  such, — this  very  commission  is,  in  this  solemn  act,  given 
to  Presbyters.  Bishop  Burnet,  speaking  of  this  very  period,  says, 
"  there  was  then  no  express  mention  made  in  the  words  of  ordain- 
ing them,  that  it  was  for  one  or  the  other  office."     More  than  this. 

*The  Primitive  Church,  p.  391. 

I-  lb.,  pp.  391-394. 

j  Not  fo.  From  Mr.  C.'s  own  Chronology,  it  is  only  four  years.  The  "Necessary 
Erudition,"  he  says,  "  bears  date  a.d.  1.')43."  Henry  VIlI.'s  death  occurred  a.d.  1547. 
(The  Prim.  Church,  p.  390.     Riddle's  Chron.,  p.  354.) 


427 

We  challenge  any  advocate  of  prelacy  to  produce  tlie  documents 
published  by  the  Church,  met  in  solemn  convocation,  showing 
that  she  has  repealed  the  above,  and  as  plainly  declaring  the  order 
of  bishops  to  be  by  divine  institution  superior  to,  and  incompatible 
with,  the  ollice  of  presbyters  as  such  ;  and  that  such  bishops  alone 
have  power,  authority,  and  commission,  under  Christ,  to  appoint 
that  ministry  in  his  Church,  which  alone  is  entitled  to  the  claim  of 
being  a  lawful  and  valid  ministry. 

Will  Mr.  C.  please  accept  at  our  hand,  as  a  gratuity,  this  small 
item  of  an  addition  to  his  seven  years  "  chain  of  authorities,"  oi  one 
hundred  and  nineteen  years,  in  proof  that  the  English  Chukch,  on 
the  subject  in  cjuestion,  was  PRESBYTERIAN  !  More  than  this. 
Although,  in  the  revision  of  1662,  these  passages  were  omitted  in 
the  form  of  ordaining  a  presbyter,  and  were  generally  transferred 
to  the  form  of  consecrating  a  bishop,  yet  it  is  clear,  that  the  Re- 
formers looked  upon  it  only  as  a  decent  ceremon}^,  but  as  having 
no  scriptural  authority,  nor  as  conferring  any  additional  divine 
authority.*  To  the  above  may  be  added  the  fact,  that  the  English 
reformers  also  appointed  presbyters  to  lay  on  hands,  with  the  bishops, 
in  ordaining pjresbyters.  The  ordinal  directs,  "when  this  prayer  is 
done,  the  bishop,  ivith  the  priests  present,  shall  lay  their  hands  se- 
verally upon  the  head  of  every  one  that  receiveth  the  order  of 
priesthood,"!  etc.  Will  Mr.  0.  adopt  the  hypothesis  of  Bishop 
Griswold  .  respecting  the  Ephesian  "  presbyters"  who  ordained 
Timoth}',  that  these  "  priests"  are  "  a  college  of  apostles"  ?:{:  Such, 
we  have  shown,  was  not  the  opinion  of  the  English  Reformers, 
who,  holding  "  That  priests  and  bishops,  by  God's  law,  are  one  and 
the  same,  and  that  the  power  of  ordination  and  excommunication 
belongs  equally  to  both ;"  it  follows,  that  Pkesbtters  arc  actually 
ordainers  in  all  the  scrijytural  ordinations  that  have  ever  taken 
j>lace  in  the  Anglican  and  American  churches,  and  on  which 
ground  it  is  the  happiness  of  all  who  are  generically  Presbyterian, 
to  admit  the  validity  of  their  ordination. 

Finally,  on  this  subject.  Several  acts  of  parliament,  viz. :  the 
13th  Elizabeth,  c.  12  ;  and  the  12th  Carol,  II.,  c.  17,  have  ratified 
the  ordination  of  such  as  were  ordained  by  jpreshyters  only.  Hun- 
drediJ  of  such  were  confirmed  in  their  livings  as  true  ministers  in 
the  Church  of  England.  Archbishop  Grindal  gave  a  license,  "  ap- 
proving and  ratifying  the  form  of  ordination  by  a  Scotch  presby- 
tery, of  Mr.  Morrison,  a  Scots  divine,  and  gave  him  commission 
"  throughout  the  whole  diocese  of  Canterbury,  to  celebrate  divine 
offices,  to  administer  sacraments,  etc."§  "  No  bishop  in  Scotland, 
during  my  stay  in  that  kingdom"  (says  Burnet,  bishop  of  Sarum), 
"  ever  did  so  much  as  desire  any  of  the  Presbyterians  to  be  re- 

*  Vide  Burnet's  Records,  B.  3,  No.  21.    Qu's.  10-14;  and  Appleton's  Ed.,  VoL  I^ 
Addenda,  p.  SS-'i. 

t  See  Book  of  Common  Prayer.     Form  of  Ordaining  Priests. 

%  See  pp.  274-276. 

\  Neale's  History  of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  I. 


428 

ordaiaedy*  And,  of  those  Preshyterkdly  ordained  ministers  of 
the  French  churclies  who  sought  admission  into  the  English 
Church,  and  of  whom,  says  Bishop  Cosin,  there  were  some  both 
before,  and  many  during  his  own  time  ;  the  English  bishops,  says 
he,  "  did  not  re-orditin^^  such,  nor  did  the  English  "  laws  require 
more"  of  them  than  to  declare  "their  ^uWtc  consent  to  the  reli- 
gion received  by"  that  Church,  "and  to  subscribe  the  articles 
established,"  etc.f 

In  conclusion :  Inasmuch  as  Mr.  C.  insists,  that  those  with  whom 
originated  the  two  above-named  "Declarations"  in  1538  and 
1543  "  were  then  Romanists,  and  hence,"  that  their  "  opinions 
are  no  evidence  of  what  they  thought  as  Reformers,"  we  are  to 
infer  that  the  English  Reformation  as  contradistinguished  from 
Romanism,  must  have  awaited  the  development  of  their  thoughts 
as  reformers  at  a  subsequent  period,  not  only,  but,  that  there  is  a 
wide  and  impcissable  gulf  between  the  English  Church,  as  reformed, 
and  the  Romish,  And  Mr.  C.  would  make  the  incorporation,  into 
the  ordination  ofl&ce,  of  the  recognition  of  the  diuine  right  of 
bishops  as  distinct  from  that  of  presbyters  in  the  article  of  the  or- 
daining power,  etc.,  as  the  mark,  the  hinge,  of  their  transit  from 
Romanism  to  the  character  of  Protestant  Reformers.  The  only 
clew,  however,  which  he  condescends  to  fnrnish  to  the  reader  as  to 
the  date  of  said  transit  (and  the  very  circumstance,  too,  on  which 
depends  the  evidence  that  he  is  not  "  either  too  ignorant  to  write, 
or  too  dishonest  to  be  trusted"  on  this  subject),  is,  that  "  the 
chain  of  authorities  by  which  the  reformers  of  the  English  Epis- 
copal Church  are  to  be  proved  Presbyterian,"  "  ends"  '■^  seven  years 
before  the  compilation  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"  which 
places  it  a.d.  1543. 

In  addition,  therefore,  to  the  evidence  already  offered,  shoAving 
that  the  "  English  Reformers,"  long  after  this,  still  adhered  to  the 
great  and  fundamental  principle  of  Presbj- terianism,  we  remark, 
that  the  most  distinguished  bishops  who  were  concerned  in  the 
drawing  up,  etc.,  of  the  two  declarations  of  1538  and  1543,  were 
also  concerned  in  the  compilation  of  the  Book  of  Orders,  is- 
sued under  Edward  VI.  We  further  quote  Bishop  Burnet  in 
proof.  Speaking  of  a  movement  made  by  act  of  parliament  for 
"anew  office  for  ordinations,"  a.d.  1549,:}:  "a  bill,"  he  tells  us, 
"  was  brought  into  the  House  of  Lords"  the  following  year,  1550, 
"  the  substance  of  which  was,  that  such  forms  of  ordaining  minis- 
ters as  should  be  set  forth  hy  the  advice  of  six  prelates  and  six 
divines,  to  be  named  by  the  king,  and  authorized  by  a  warrant 
under  the  great  seal,  should  be  used  after  April  next,  and  no 

*  Bishop  of  Sariim  8  Vindication ;  printed  London,  1696,  pp.  84,85,  quoted  by  Owen,  in 
his  "  Ordination  by  Presbyters."     Introd. 

t  Bishop  Cosin's  Letter  to  Cordel,  inserted  in  the  ''  Two  Treatises  on  the  Church," 
published  by  Hooker,  Philadelphia.  1844. 

I  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  IL,  Part  IL.  B.  I.,  p.  22.3.  Appleton's 
ediiiou 


429 

other."^'  "What  was  this  '■'■  new  office  V  He  replies:  "  So  they" 
(the  above  six  prelates  and  six  divines)  "  agreed  on  a  form  of 
ordaining  deacons,  priests,  and  bishops,  which  is  the  same  we  yet 
use,  except  in  some  few  words  that  have  been  added  since  in  the  or- 
dination of  a  priest  or  a  bishop.  For,"  he  adds,  "  there  was 
THEN,"  that  is,  A.D.  1550,  ^^7io  express  tnentioii  made  in  the  or- 
daining of  them,  that  it  was  for  the  one  or  the  other  office  ;" 
in  BOTH  it  was  said,  "  Receive  thou  the  Hol}^  Ghost,  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,"  etc.f  When  were  the  above  additions  made? 
Not  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  of  Elizabeth,  a.d.  1560. 
For,  in  speaking  of  it,  Bishop  Burnet  says  :  "  But  for  the  book  of 
ordination,  it  was  not  in  express  terms  named  in  the  act,  which 
gave  an  occasion  afterwards  to  question  the  lawfulness  of  the  or- 
dinations made  by  that  book.  But  ly  this  act,  the  book  that  was 
set  out  by  King  Edward,  and  confirmed  by  Parliament  in  the  fifth 
year  of  his  reign,  was  again  authorized  hy  law,  and  the  repeal  of 
it  in  Qaeen  Mary's  time  was  made  void.  So  the  book  of  ordina- 
tion being  iji  that  act  added  to  the  Booh  of  Common  Prayer,  it 
was  NOW  LEGALLY  IN  FORCE  AGAIN,  as  was  afterwafds  declared  in 
Parliament,  upon  a  question  that  was  raised  about  it  by  Bonner.":}: 
What  now  think  you,  reader,  either  of  the  accuracy  or  the 
honesty  of  Mr.  C,  as  an  historian  ?  No.  As  we  have  said,  if,  as 
Mr.  C.  afiirms,  the  Anglican  Reformation  is  made  to  commence  at 
that  point  of  time  when  the  English  reformers  effected  their  transit 
from  Presbyterianism,  as  above,  to  the  incorporating  into  the  ordi- 
nation office  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  what  is  now  claimed 
to  be  the  divine  right  of  hishoj^s  as  an  order  superior  to,  and  dis- 
tinct from,  those  of  presbyters ;  then,  inasmuch  as  we  have  proved 
that  that  transit  was  not  made  till  a.d.  1662,  it  follows,  that  the 
English  Tteformation  could  not  have  commenced  till  that  date  ! 
A  conclusion,  we  opine,  which  few  prelatists  will  be  prepared  to 
admit. 

•  As  it  regards  the  other  point, — the  d.ifference  between  the  En- 
glish Church  as  reformed,  and  the  Romish,  it  has  been  the  design 
of  this  Treatise  to  demonstrate,  on  the  combined  authority  of 
"IIol}'  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,"  in  conjunction  with  the 
writings  of  the  advocates  of  prelacy  of  modern  times,  that, 
inasmuch  as,  inherent  in  the  very  texture  of  prelatical  Episcopacy 
is  the  germ  of  the  Papac}- ;  so,  the  early  j^o^^apostolic  so-called 
Episcopacy,  having  produced  that  "  infinite  superstition ;"  modern 
Episcopacy,  even  in  its  mildest  and  most  diluted  form,  preserving 
the  elements  of  the  original  germ, — a  love  for  "the  pke-emi- 
nence,"  has  the  same  tendenc}^  Romeward,  as  that  of  the  magnetic 
needle  to  the  body  which  attracts  it.  As  the  fountain,  so  the 
streams.'     As  the  tree,  so  the  fruit.^     That  distinguished  oracle  of 

(1)  James  3  :  11.     (2)  Matt  7  :  17,  18. 

*  Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  Vol.  IL,  Part  II.,  B.  I.,  p.  22.5. 
■f  lb.,  p.  229.  X  I!).,  p.  607. 


430 

prelacy,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hook  of  Leeds,  England,  speaking  of  "  the 
Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  Established,"  says : 
"  The  Chubcu  remained  the  same  after  it  was  reformed  as  it 
WAS  BEFORE."  Truc,  hc  adds,  "just  as  a  man  remains  the  same 
after  he  has  washed  his  face  as  he  was  before."^'  But  we  desire 
the  reader  liere  to  bear  in  mind  what  we  have  offered  in  proof  of 
t?ie  a7itichrutian  cliaracter  of  the  usurped  lay  headship,  spirit- 
ual, temporal,  and  supreme,  of  the  British  monarch  down  to  the 
present  female  incumbent  of  that  tlirone,  and  then  ask  :  Is  "the 
Man  of  sin"  less  "  the  Man  of  sin,"  because,  forsooth,  he  is  "trans- 
formed" into  a  Protestant  "  angel  of  light"  ?  Does  the  "  Harlot" 
become  a  pure  virgin,  simply  by  washing  her  fiice  ? 

"^  little  leaven  leaveneth  the  whole  lump."    (Gal.  5  :  9.) 
Wherefore,   "come  ye  out  of  her,  my  people,  that  ye  be  not 
partakers   of  her  sins,  and  that  ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues." 
(Rev.  18  :  4.) 

*  Sermon,  "  Hear  the  Church."    Preached  before  the  queen,  June  17,  1838,  p.  12. 


431 


CHAPTEE  XI. 

ON  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 
SECTION  I. 

Introductory. — The  prelatical  theory,  "  nulla  ecdesia  sine  cpiscopo.^^ — Marks  or  notes  by 
which  the  Church  Catholic  is  to  be  known :  namely,  Apostolicity,  Catholicity, 
Unity,  Sanctity,  Discipline. — Prelatists  not  agreed  as  to  what  constitutes  these  notes, 
their  differences  varying  from  four  to  four  hundred. — Valentia,  Dreido,  Sanders, 
Pisteria,  Bellarmine,  Bossius,  etc. — So  also  in  regard  to  authorities. — Canus,  Bannes, 
Suares,  Duvall,  Conink,  Arriaga,  Usamburtius,  Gillius,  Amiens,  Rhodius,  etc.,  of  the 
Romanists. — Palmer,  Field,  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor,  Dr.  Sherlock,  Dr.  Freeman, 
Dr.  Payne,  the  Homilies,  etc.,  of  the  Protestants. — The  two  notes,  apostolicity  and 
catholicity,  applied  to  the  Roman,  and  the  Anglican  and  American  Episcopal 
Churches. 

A  FEW  remarks  on  the  subject  of  this  chapter  will  conclude 
what  we  have  to  offer  regarding  the  constitution  of  the  Church 
and  ministry,  discussed  in  the  foregoing  Treatise. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  suhstratum  of  the  prelatico-episcopal 
theory  as  put  forth  by  its  advocates,  Eomish,  Tractarian,  and 
High. and  Low  Church,  is,  '•^  nulla  ecdesia  sine  episcqpo /  without 
a  bishop,  there  is  no  Church," 

Now,  in  testing  this,  or  any  other  principle  connected  with  the 
questions.  What  is  the  Church?  Which  is  the  true  Church? 
Where  is  it  to  be  found  ?  we  must  rely  upon  certain  infallible 
marks,  or  notes,  by  which  it  is  to  be  known. 

Then,  too,  these  marks  or  notes  must  possess  the  following  attri- 
butes :  First.,  they  must  be  plain,  or  well  defined.  Second.,  they 
must  always  exist  where  the  Church  is.  Third.,  they  must  apply 
to  the  Church  in  a  sense  in  which  they  will  aj^ply  to  no  other 
body.  In  a  word,  they  must  be  simple,  inseparable,  incommuni- 
cable. And,  fourth^  they  must  be  authenticated  by  an  undoubted 
or  certain  standard  of  appeal.  Any  marks  or  signs  which,  upon 
examination,  will  be  found  to  bear  the  test  of  these  conditions,  will 
enable  us  to  determine  with  certainty  what  is  the  "essence"  of  the 
Church ;  which  is  the  true  Church  in  contradistinction  from  the 
false  ;  and  where  that  Church  is  to  be  found. 

What,  then,  are  these  marks  or  signs  f  For  the  purposes  of 
force  and  perspicuity,  let  us  adopt  the  following:  first,  Ajjostoli- 
city ;  second,  Catholicity  ;  third,  Unity  ;  fourth,  Sanctity ;  fifth, 
Discipline. 


432 

The  point  to  be  decided,  is,  whether  these  marks  or  signs  are 
true,  according  to  the  prelatico-episcopal,  or  the  t^n-^e-prelatico- 
episcopal  or  Presbyterian  theory,  of  what  constitutes  the  Church. 
Our  plan  requires  that  we  test  them  in  their  aj)plication  to  the 
claims, 

I.  Of  the  Prelatico-Episcopal  theory,  as  advocated  both  by  Eo- 
manists  and  Protestants.  Here,  however,  in  the  very  outset,  the 
pretensions  to  the  exercise  of  "  authority  in  controversies  of  faith" 
and  to  infallibility  as  a  guide,  of  the  "one  holy  Catholic  and 
apostolic"  Church  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  neither  class  of 
the  above  writers  are  any  more  agreed  among  themselves  as  to 
what  constitutes  the  true  marks  or  notes  of  the  Church,  nor  of  the 
standard  of  appeal  by  which  they  are  to  be  known,  than  they  are 
on  the  subject  of  prelacy  itself  As  it  respects  the  Romanists^ 
in  regard  to  "  the  notes  of  the  Church,"  Valentia  reckons  four ; 
Dreido  six ;  Medina  ten :  Sanders  and  Pistorius  twelve  ;  Bellar- 
mine  fifteen  ;  and  Bossius  one  hundred.  The  same  diversity  holds 
true  of  the  "  standard"  by  which  they  are  to  be  known  :  Canus, 
Bannes,  Suares,  Duvall,  Coniuk,  Arriaga,  Usambertus,  Gillius, 
Amicus,  and  Rhodius,  hold  that  they  are  to  be  determined  "by 
the  light  of  reason"  alone.  Dreido  and  Cardinal  Richelieu  contend 
that  they  are  "  marked  out  and  taught  in  the  Scripture;"*  while, 
according  to  the  Tridentine  decrees,  they  are  only  to  be  deter- 
mined by  "  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers,"  alias  Tradition. 

Nor  will  Pkotestant  prelatists  be  found  to  exhibit  any  more  of 
harmony  in  regard  to  either,  than  the  Romanists.  Palmer  adopts 
the  "  notes"  of  "  the  Constantinopolitan  Creed"  after  Valentia  as 
above ;  namely,  that  the  Church  is  "  one,  holy,  catholic  and  apos- 
tolic," On  the  other  hand,  "  Dr.  Field  admits  truth  of  doctrine,  use 
of  sacraments,  and  means  instituted  by  Christ ;  union  under  law- 
ful ministers ;  antiquity  without  change  of  doctrine ;  lawful  suc- 
cession, that  is,  with  true  doctrine ;  and  universality  in  the  suc- 
cessive sense — that  is,  the  prevalence  of  the  Church  successively 
in  all  nations."  And  "  Bishop  Taylor  admits  as  notes  of  the 
Church,  antiquity,  duration,  succession  of  bishops,  union  of  mem- 
bers among  themselves  with  Christ,  sanctity  of  doctrine,"  etc.f  to 
which  Mr.  Palmer  objects.  Dr.  Sherlock  says :  "To  begin.  Avith 
the  Protestant  Avay  of  finding  out  the  Church  by  the  essential  pro- 
perties of  a  true  Church  ;  such  as  the  profession  of  the  true  Chris- 
tian faith,  and  the  Christian  sacraments  rightly  and  duly  adminis- 
tered,":}: etc.  Dr.  Freeman  says ;  "That  the  sincere  preaching  of 
the  faith  or  doctrine  of  Christ,  as  it  is  laid  down  in  the  Scriptures, 

*  See  on  this  subject,  article,  "  Tlie  Church,"  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  by  Rev. 
Georiie  Peck,  D.D.,  p.  216. 

t  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Church  of  Christ,  etc..  Vol.  I.,  pp.  47,  48. 

X  Cartiinal  Bellarmine's  Notes  of  the  Church,  examined  and  refuted  in  a  series  of 
Tracts,  pp.  3,  4. 


433 

is  the  only  sure,  infallible  mark  of  the  Church  of  Christ/'*  etc. 
Dr.  Payne  says :  "  We  desire  nothing  more  than  to  find  out  the 
true  Church  by  the  true  faith,"f  etc.  And  the  homilies  say,  the 
Church  "  hath  always  three  notes  or  marks  whereby  it  is  known : 
pure  and  sound  doctrine,  the  sacraments  ministered  according  to 
Christ's  holy  institution,  and  the  right  use  of  ecclesiastical  disci- 
pline," etc.:}:  Now,  by  a  comparison  of  the  above,  it  will  be  seen, 
that  Mr.  Palmer  has  "  rejected  every  one  of  those  drawn  up  by 
the  reformers,  and  adopted  by  his  own  Church."  So  much  for  the 
"notes." 

And  so,  of  the  autliorities  relied  upon  to  determine  them.  Some 
rely  on  "  Scripture"  alone  ;  others,  on  "  Scripture  and  tradition," 
"  holy  Scripture  and  ancient  authors,"  etc.§ 

With  these  facts  before  us,  let  us  proceed  to  apply  the  above 
marks  or  notes  of  the  Church  to  the  prelatico-episcopal  theory. 
And, 

1.  AposTOLicrrT.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  say,  that  this  mark 
or  note  of  the  Church,  on  the  prelatico-episcopal  hypothesis  of 
"  No  bishop,  no  Church,"  involving,  as  it  does,  the  dogma  that 
prelacy  is  of  the  "essence"  of  the  Church  ;  that  is,  that  the  Church 
cannot  exist  where  there  is  no  hisJiojj  j  with  it  also  involves  the 
dogma  of  a  seminal  or  genealogical  unbroken  succession  apos- 
tolical, from  the  New  Testament  age  down  to  the  present  time. 
And  having  shown  that,  how  much  soever  prelatists,  Romish, 
Tractarian,  and  High  and  Low  Church,  may  differ  as  to  the  pre- 
cise channel  of  its  transmission,  yet  agreeing,  as  has  been  proved, 
in  all  that  constitutes  its  essential  elements  as  a  Christian  priest- 
hood, and  also,  that  the  Anglican  and  American  successions  are 
derived  from  that  of  Eome  ;  this  "  note"  being  alike  claimed  by 
all,  may  be  considered  as  equally  applicable  to  all,  and  hence  re- 
lieves us  from  the  necessity  of  applying  it  to  them  separately. 

For  the  proof  the  fallacy  of  this  dogma  as  a  "  note"  of  the 
true  Church,  it  must  suffice  that  we  refer  the  reader  to  what  we 
have  offered  in  Part  II.  of  this  Treatise,  and  also  in  Part  III.,  par- 
ticularly the  eleven  arguments  against  the  Romish  succession, 
pages  285  and  802  inclusive  ;  and  those  against  the  Anglican  suc- 
cession, page  832,  et  seq. 

But,  should  the  Anglican  and  American  successionists,  per- 
chance, demur  at  this  summary  disposal  of  the  above  "  note"  as 
applicable  to  them,  we  are  willing  to  allow  them  the  full  benefit  of 
a  further  test  on  their  own  ground — that  of  antiquity  or  tradition, 
alias  "  apostolical  documents,"  such  as  they,  in  common  with 
Romanists,  acknowledge  to  be  authentic.  Take,  for  example,  the 
fourth  and  sixth  canons  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  a.d.  325,  wherein 
it  is  enacted,  that  no  bishop  should  be  constituted  except  by  all 

*  Bellarmine's  Notes  Examined,  etc.,  p.  69.  t  fb.,  pp.  ISO,  151. 

X  Homily  on  Whitsunday.  '  §  See  Part  I.  of  this  Treatise. 

28 


434 

tlie  bishops  of  the  province,  or  by  at  least  three  bishops,  the  ab- 
sentees giving  their  suffrages,  and  the  whole  to  be  considered 
valid,  only  as  confirmed  by  the  metropolitan.  Query.  In  how 
many  instances  have  these  conditions  been  verified  in  the  consecra- 
tions of  the  Amenca7i  bishops  ? 

Again.  The  thirty-fifth  of  the  "  Apostolical  Canons"  is  quoted 
to  nullify  the  papal  authority  in  England,  upon  the  strength  of  its 
assertion  of  the  independence  of  bishops.  That  canon  enacts,  that 
a  bishop  who  dared  to  ordain  beyond  his  own  limits  should  be 
deposed.  Now,  Mr.  Chapin  affirms,  that  the  Komish  monk,  Au- 
gustine, sent  into  England  by  Gregory  I.,  a.d.  600,  "  owed  sithnis- 
sion  to  the  inetroj^olitan  of  Britain^^  But,  we  have  proved 
(and  that  by  the  admission  of  Mr.  C.  himself),  that  the  entire  line 
of  the  Anglican  succession  commenced  with  and  descended  from 
this  very  Augustine,  as  "  the  first  Saxon  bishojD  and  the  first  arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury."!  Therefore,  Augustine's  consecrations, 
according  to  the  above  "  Apostolical  Canon,"  being  void^  it  nul- 
lifies, at  a  single  stroke,  defacto^  the  consecrations  of  all  the  arch- 
bishops and  bishops,  and  the  ordinations  of  all  the  priests  and 
deacons,  that  have  ever  held  a  name  in  the  ENGLISH  CIIURCH. 

Once  more.  The  same  authority  throws  another  difficulty  in  the 
way  of  the  English  succession  :  "  XXX.  If  any  bishop  obtain 
possession  of  a  church  by  the  aid  of  the  temporal  powtv,  let  him  be 
deposed  and  excommunicated,  and  all  who  communicate  with 
him."  Now,  recalling  to  mind  the  fact,  that  by  ^'' act  of  jKtrlia- 
-ment^''  as  already  shown,  the  fountain  or  source  of  the  English 
succession  of  bishops  resides  in  the  lay  headship,  supreme  and 
absolute,  spiritual  and  temporal,  of  the  monarchs  of  the  British 
throne  as  alleged  to  be  founded  in  a  "  prescriptive"  or  "  divine 
right,"  what  archbishop,  etc.,  can  be  named  who  has  not  thus  ob- 
tained possession  of  his  church  ?  How,  we  ask,  came  Cranmer 
under  Henry  VIII.,  Parker  under  Elizabeth,  and  Tillotson  under 
William  and  Mary,  to  possess  the  See  of  Canterbury  ?  Was  it 
not  "  by  the  aid  of  the  temporal  powers"  ?  The  prelates  of  that 
hierarchy,  we  affirm,  "  are  all,  de  facto,  deposed  by  what  they  ge- 
nerally allow  to  be  apostolical  authority." 

So  far,  then,  as  a^ostolicity  is  a  mark  or  note  of  the  true  Church, 
neither  the  Eomish  nor  the  Anglican  Churches  possessing  it,  clearly 
they    are    not    that   true  Church.     We  pass  to  the  next   "note." 

II.  Catholicity.  "  I  believe  in  tlie  holy  Catholic  Church^''  as 
it  stands  in  the  so-called  "  Apostles's  Creed,"  forms  the  united  lan- 
guage of  all  who  bear  the  Christian  name.  The  word  KadoXtnog^ 
Catholicos,  which  signifies  general,  universal,  aptly  designates  what 
the  true  Church  of  Christ  must  be,  that  is,  "  Catholic." 

But  it  turns  out  that  of  those .  who  bear  the  Christian  name, 
Christendom  is  divided  into  two  great  bodies,  the  Pajpal  and  the 

*  The  Primitive  Church,  p.  360.  f  lb.,  p.  291. 


485 

Protestant ;  the  former  of  whom,  and  a  portion  of  the  latter, 
each  in  turn  appropriating  to  themselves  the  term  as  a  mark  or 
note  by  which  theirs,  respectively,  is  to  be  known  as  the  only  true 
Church.  This  circumstance,  therefore,  will  require  that  we  con- 
sider it  in  its  application  to  the  claims  as  well  of  the  Romish  as  of 
the  Anglican  and  non-prelatical  Churches. 

1.  Of  the  Romish  Church. 

Of  the  word  itself,  we  remark, 

(1.)  That  whatever  may  be  claimed  in  its  behalf  on  the  score  of 
antiquittj^  yet,  as  it  is  not  found  connected  with  the  Church  in 
the  New  Testament,  it  is  not  authoritative.  Though  it  appears  in 
the  titles  of  several  of  the  Epistles^James  1st,  and  2d  Peter, 
those  of  John,  and  that  of  Jude — yet  it  is  not  in  the  original.  It 
was  first  employed  to  distinguish  the  aggregate  body  from  the 
several  branches  of  the  church  which  composed  it.  Then,  as  a 
line  of  demarkation  between  orthodox  and  heretical  churches.  At 
length,  however,  it  came  to  be  adopted  by  Papists,  etc.,  in  an 
exclusive  sense,  they  claiming  under  the  appellation  of  "  The  Ro- 
man Catholic  Church,"  to  constitute  the  Jirst^  not  only,  but  the 
only  true  Church  of  Christ  on  earth  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others. 
In  evidence  of  the  fallacy,  to  say  nothing  of  the  arrogance  of  this 
unchurching  dogma,  we  remark, 

(2.)  That  the  ver}^  title  above  assumed  is  a  sopMsm,.  We  would 
here  remind  the  reader  of  the  saying  of  Pacian,  "  Christian  is  my 
name  and  Catholic  my  surname."  And  the  learned  Du  Pin  in- 
forms us,  "that  at  the  present  time,  the /jame  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  is  given  to  the  Catholic  Church,  and  that  these  two  terms" — 
that  is,  Roman  and  Catholic — "  pass  for  synonymous."  But  by 
what  logic,  pray,  can  they  be  made  synonymous  ?  The  name 
Roman  indicates  that  which  is  limited  and  local,  as  the  Church  in 
the  city  of  Rome.  The  word  Catholic  means  universal.  The 
above  title,  therefore  (designed,  we  know,  to  impress  upon  the  too 
credulous  masses  the  idea  of  the  primitive  origin  and  universal 
extension  over  all  nations  of  the  Romish,  as  "  the  mother  and  mis- 
tress of  all  churches"),  if  there  is  any  meaning  in  language,  in- 
volves the  absurdity  of  2^ particular  universal  church.  Proceed 
we  now  to  the  proof,  that  so  far  from  the  term  Catholic  being 
applicable  to  the  Church  of  Rome, 

(3.)  It  is  a  misnomer^  she  being,  de  facto,  no  more  than  a  sect, 
unknown  in  history,  as  she  is  now  constituted,  until  about  the 
middle  of  the  eleventh  century.  •  Look  at  the  Church  of  Rome, 
with  her  popes,  cardinals,  patriarchs,  primates,  metropolitans,  arch- 
bishops, archdeacons,  monks,  friars,  and  nuns,  etc.,  inculcating  the 
worship  of  images  and  relics,  penances,  prayers  to  and  for  the 
dead,  mariolatry,  etc.,  and  the  doctrine  of  priestly  absolution,  au- 
ricular confession,  purgatory,  transubstantiation,  extreme  unction, 


436 

etc. ;  and  then  ask,  Can  this  be  the  primitive,  Catholic  Church,  as 
instituted  by  Christ  and  his  apostles  more  than  1800  years  ago  ? 
The  learned  Da  Pin,  an  authentic  historian  of  that  Church,  proves 
the  spuriousness  of  certain  decrees  and  writings  of  the  so-called 
first  popes,  claimed  by  Romanists  as  genuine  in  the  ninth  century, 
by  exhibiting  the  absence,  in  them,  of  any  reference  to  the  exist- 
ence, at  the  times  spoken  of,  of  the  offices  and  customs  which  now 
prevail.*  For  example.  He  says,  "  We  find  several  passages  in 
the  letter  attributed  to  Anicetus,"  (a.d.  155,  Chapin's  Chronicles,) 
"which  do  not  agree  with  the  time  of  that  pope  ;  as,  for  instance, 
what  is  there  laid  down  concerning  the  ordinations  of  bishops, 
sacerdotal  tonsure,  archbishops,  and  primates,  which  were  not  in- 
stituted till  long  after  ;   besides  many  things  of  the  same  na- 

ture."t 

Again.  No  command  can  be  put  in  language  more  explicit  than 
that  of  Christ,  "  Call  no  man  your  Father  upon  the  earth  ;'"  Gr. 
pappas;  Lat.  papa,— /ai!A<3/" 4  in  other  words,  "call  no  man 
POPE."  Yet,  this  very  name  is  applied  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
who  arrogates  to  himself  the  title  of  Catholic,  or  "  universal  fath- 
er ;"  and  that,  in  the  very  face  of  the  above  prohibition,  which 
was  designed  to  effect  the  double  work  of  reproof  to  the  proud 
and  self-righteous  Rabbis  of  Jerusalem,  and  of  warning  to  his  own 
disciples  against  similar  aspirations,  and  of  whom  the  first  were 
called,  not  pope,  but  "  apostle.'"  Indeed,  the  title  of  "pope"  was 
unknown  and  unthought  of  in  the  Church,  until  towards  the  close 
of  the  sixth  century.  Du  Pin,  speaking  of  the  6th  canon  of  the 
Council  of  Nice,  held  a.d.  325,  says,  that  it  "  does  not  establish 
the  supremacy  of  the  Church  of  Rorae."^  The  same  is  true  of 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  held  a.d.  451,  the  28th  canon  of 
which  places  the  metropolitan  of  Constantinople  on  a  footing  of 
equality  with  the  bishop  of  Rome.  The  fact  is,  the  title  of 
"  pope"  as  now  used,  was  a  novelt}^  even  at  Rome,  as  late  as  a.d. 
588.  Gregory  I.  remonstrated  against  it  when  assumed  by  John, 
the  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  calling  it  "a  singular  name,"  and 
declaring  that  "  the  bishop  of  Rome  neither  ought,  nor  can  assume 
it."|  And  Du  Pin,  in  his  life  of  Gregory,  says,  "  He  did  often 
rigorously  oppose  the  title  of  universal  patriarch,  which  the  patri- 
archs of  Constantinople  assumed  to  themselves,"  calling  it  "  proud, 
blasphemous,  antichristian,  diabolical,"  and  says,  the  bishops  of 
Rome  rcfased  to  take  this  title  upon  them,  "  lest  they  should  seem 
to  encroach  upon  the  rights  of  other  bishops."!" 

(4.)  Then,  in  addition  to  the  above  may  be  named  the  fact,  that 

(1)  Matt.  23  :  9.     (2)  1  Cor.  12  :  28  ;  Eph.  4  :  11. 
*  Du  Pin's  Ecclesiastical  History,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  173-178. 
t  lb.,  Vol.   I.,  p.  177. 
X  See  pp.  285,  286. 

§  Du  Pin's  Ecclesiastical  History,  Vol.  II  ,  p.  252. 
11  Gre^.  Epi.stles.  B.  IV.,  Epi-st.  .32  and  36. 
i  Du  Pin's  Life  ol"  Gregory  I.,  Chap.  I. 


437 

the  Greek  CHURcn,  which  also  claims  to  be  "  the  only  true,  Cath- 
olic, and  apostolic  Church,"  has  superior  claims  over  that  of  Rome. 
Take  the  following  in  proof.  The  Greek  language  has  the  same 
priority  over  the  Latin,  as  the  Hebrew  has  over  it ;  which  circum- 
stance furnishes  the  evidence,  that,  "  all  the  leading  ecclesiastical 
terms  in  the  lloman  Church, — for  example  :  '•'■  jpope^^  ^'' patriarch^'' 
'"'■  synocl^''  '•'•ecclesiastic^''  '■'■  scJiism,^''  ^'- heresy^''  '•'■catechumen^'' 
'■'■hierarchy^''  '•''church^''  '•'•chrism^''  '■'■  exorcism,^''  '•'•  diocese^''  '•'•  pres- 
hytery^''  '•'•  trinity i^''  '•'•mystery^''  '•'•catholic^''  '•'•  canon ^'^  etc.,  being 
derived  from  the  Greek,  the  Roman  Church  came  out  of  the 
hosom.  of  the  GreeJc.  All  the  ancient  ecclesiastical  historians  were 
Greek,  such  as  Eusebius,  Socrates  Scholasticus,  Evagrius  Scho- 
lasticus,  Sozoraon,  Theodoret.  The  most  ancient  and  primitive 
fathers  were  also  Greek.  They  were  models  to  the  Latins,  and 
imitated  in  their  writings.  And,  the  first  seven  general  councils 
were  all  Greek.     The  followina;  table  will  show  this : 


Whole  1 

No. 

Name. 

Year. 

Place. 

No.  of 
Bps. 

Gr. 

Ro- 

man 

1.    (1.) 

Nice, 

A.D.325 

Nice,    the  Metrop. 
of  Bithynia, 

318 

315 

3 

2.  (1.) 

Constantinople, 

"  381 

Constantinople, 

150 

149 

1 

3. 

Ephesus, 

"  431 

Ephesus, 

(^Q 

67 

1 

4. 

Chalcedon, 

"  451 

Chalcedon, 

353 

350 

3 

5.  (2.) 

Constantinople, 

"  553 

Constantinople, 

164 

156 

8 

6.  rs.) 

do. 

"  680 

do. 

56 

51 

5 

7.  (2.) 

Nice, 

"  787 

Nice, 

Total, 

377 

370 

7 

1486 

1458 

28 

Now,  these  councils  were  all  convened,  not  by  the  Pope  of 
Eome,  but  by  eastern  emperors.  They  met  in  Greek  cities,  were 
composed,  with  the  few  above  named  exceptions,  of  Greek  bishops, 
and  were  employed  about  Greek  questions.  It  follows,  that  if 
there  be  any  virtue  in  councils  to  establish  doctrines  and  the  p7'i- 
ority  of  churches,  the  Greek  Church  must  be  considered  the 
MOTHER  of  the  Roman,  rather  than  her  daughter. 

We  have  neither  time  nor  space  now  to  canvass  the  question, 
as,  to  the  precise  date  when  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  first  constitut- 
ed the  Catholic  or  universal  head  of  that  Church  ;  whether  it  was 
by  the  edict  of  Justinian,  a.d.  533,  or  by  that  of  Phocas,  a.d.  606. 
Nor  is  it  important.  Sufl&ce  it  to  say,  that  at  the  time  of  the  great 
schism  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches,  the  former,  or 
the  Greek  half,  did  first  anathematize  the  latter,  or  Roisian  half; 
from  which  period, — a.d.  July  16,  1054,  the  Romish  Church 
formed  a  separate  communion,  as  a  religious  sect.  And  if  a  sect, 
then  she  is  not  Catholic. 

So  much  then  for  the  Catholicity  of  tlie  Roman  Church. 


438 

But,  on  the  above  hypothesis,  does  it  not  follow  that  the  Greek 
being  prior  to  the  Komish,  is  the  only  true  and  uncorrupted 
Church  of  Christ  ?  To  this  we  reply,  that  such  would  not  neces- 
sarily follow,  even  were  the  question  one  of  separation  from^  in- 
stead of  a  scJiism  in,  the  body.  The  circumstance  of  the  priority 
of  the  Greek  over  the  Koman  branch  in  the  order  of  time,  would 
seem  to  have  entitled  her  patriarch  to  a  precedence  over  the  bish- 
op of  Komc,  in  the  article  of  Catholic  supremacy.  And,  the  cir- 
cumstance on  which  hinged  said  schism,  was  the  refusal  of  the 
Greek  branch  to  yield  that  claim  in  favor  of  the  Komish.  But, 
minus  the  repudiation,  by  the  Greek  branch,  of  the  Romish  Papal 
claim  to  infallibility,  both,  at  least  in  all  the  essentials  of  faith, 
ceremonials,  etc.,  are  identically  the  same.  We  hold,  therefore, 
that  both  are  equally  corrupt.  And  hence,  that,  to  neither  branch 
will  apply  the  "  note"  of  true  Catholicity.  Nor,  on  the  other 
hand,  does  the  mere  act  of  separation  from  either  the  one  branch 
or  the  other,  necessarily  entitle  the  seceding  body  to  the  claim  of 
true  Catholicity.  Let  us  proceed  to  test  this  principle  in  its  appli- 
cation to  the  claims  in  these  premises, 

2.  Of  the  Anglican  Church.  This  Church,  under  the  title  of 
"the  Protestant  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established,"  assumes 
the  position,  that,  having  separated  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  she 
is,  by  "  prescriptive"  or  divine  right,  par  excellence,  the  true  "  Ca- 
tholic Church." 

Now,  a  reformation,  in  the  sense  of  which  we  here  speak,  involv- 
ing separation  from  another  body,  implies  a  cause.  Even  under 
Henry  VIII.,  as  we  have  seen,  the  English  reformation  was  al- 
leged to  have  been  produced  by  the  antichristian  character  of  the 
popedom  and  of  the  papal  system.  The  same  holds  true  of  the 
subsequent  reformers  of  that  Church.  Consistency,  therefore,  re- 
quires that  she,  as  a  church,  in  order  to  sustain  her  claim  to  true 
Catholicity,  should  hold  the  Church  of  Rome  to  form  no  part  of  the 
true  Church  Catholic.  But,  the  same  Protean  character  marks  the 
nomenclature  of  "  Churchmen"  on  this  subject,  as  that  which  we 
have  shown  to  characterize  the  theory  of  prelacy,  as  advocated  by 
them.  Indeed,  the  prevailing  doctrine  in  the  Church  Episcopal  is, 
that  both  the  Greek  and  Roman  branches  form  constituent  j^arts  of 
the  true  Catholic  Church.  While,  in  the  days  of  Cranmer,  and 
Field,  and  Taylor,  etc.,  the  Enghsh  divines  considered  the  Church 
of  Rome  an  cipostate  church ;  Dr.  Jackson,  of  High  Church  repute, 
quoting  from  the  Romish  author  of  a  work  entitled  "  Guide  of 
Faith,"  as  follows : — "  Now  I  come  to  the  great  character  of  our 
glory,  and  renowned  title  of  our  profession,  the  name  Catholic," 
etc.  answers  :  "  For  this  very  reason,  we  Protestants  of  reform- 
ed churches,  who  are,  if  not  the  only  true  Christians  on  earth,  yet 
the  truest  Christians,  and  the  most  conspicuous  members  of  the 
'loly  Catholic  Church,  as  militant  here  on  earth,  dare  not  vouch- 


439 

safe  to  bestow  the  name  of  Catliolic  upon  any  papist,  but  with  such 
an  addition  or  item,  as  we  give  the  name  of  angels  to  infernal 
fieiuh^  which  we  term  Satan's  angels,  or  collapsed  angels,"  etc.* 
Dr.  Sherlock,  in  commenting  upon  Bcllarmine's  Notes  of  the  Church, 
says :  "  His  first  note  concerning  the  name  Catholic,  I  observe, 
makes  every  church  a  Catholic  Church  which  will  call  itself  so." 
Again :  Bellarmiae  says,  "  It  is  not  without  something  of  God, 
that  she  keeps  the  name  still."  To  this  the  learned  Churchman 
replies  :  "  But  how  does  she  keep  it  ?  She  will  call  herself  Catho- 
lic when  nobody  else  will  allow  her  to  be  so"  [which,  as  we  have 
said,  was  true  of  the  Churchmen  of  his  day] ;  "  and  thus  any 
Church  may  keep  this  name,  which  did  originally  helong  to  all 
true  orthodox  Churches,^''  etc.f  And  Dr.  Freeman  afiirms,  that 
"  no  argument  can  be  drawn  from  the  hare  name  of  Catholic,  to 
prove  a  Church  to  be  Catholic.":J: 

In  conclusion  on  this  subject,  it  must  suffice  that  we  add,  that 
the  theology  of  the  Churchmen  of  this  age,  in  the  use  and  applica- 
tion of  this  "  note"  to  their  Church  as  evidence  of  its  Catholicity, 
stands  diametrically  opposed  to  that  of  their  own  most  eminent 
reformers ;  who  maintained,  that  the  reformed  churches  of  the  Con- 
tinent, though  under  Presbyterian  government,  were  true  Churches 
of  Christ,  and  consequently  true  branches  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
It  will  avail  nothing  to  urge  in  reply,  that  Romanists  assume  and 
use  the  name  "  Catholic"  exclusively,  while  Churchmen  only  claim  a 
common  title  to  it  with  other  apostolical,  that  is,  prelatical  churches. 
Admitting  this  difference,  to  what  does  it  amount?  It  still  re- 
stricts the  Catholic  Church  to  the  prelatical  Churches" — Romish^ 
Tractarian,  and  High  and  Low  Church — "  and  so  excludes  the 
Reformed  Churches  of  the  Continent  of  Europe"  (to  the  learning, 
piety,  and  wisdom  of  several  of  whose  most  eminent  divines,  the 
English  Church  will  he  forever  principally  indebted  for  what  of 
Protestantism  she  can  boast  of\  "  and  the  Presbyterian,  Dutch 
Reformed,  Congregational,  Methodist,  and  Baptist  Churches  of  all 
parts  of  the  world,  from  any  share  in  the  Catholic  Church;"  and, 
in  the  exuberance  of  her  Christian  charity,  consigns  them  over  to 
the  "  uncovenanted  mercies  of  God  .^"  We  affirm,  then,  that  in 
the  article  of  exclusiveness,  if  we  except  a  difference  of  form,  it  is 
identical  with  that  of  the  Romish  Church.  "  And  forsooth,  be- 
cause our  Churchmen  assume  to  be  true  Catholics,  such  they  must 
be  conceded  to  be !  For  it  would  seem  that  in  these  days,  what- 
ever was  the  case  in  the  days  of  the  old  English  fathers,  the  me^'e 
assumjjtion  of  the  name  Catholic  is  a  veritable  note  of  "  tke 
Church  !"  But  it  will  be  found,  after  all  the  bluster  which  is 
raised  in  these  days  over  this  venerable  word,  that  it  has  no  talis- 
manic  power  to  raise  from  the  dead,  and  to  adorn  with  apostolical 

*  See  his  Treatise,  Of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  and  Faith,  Chap.  XX.  Ed.  1627. 
t  Romish  Notes  of  the  Church  Examined,  p.  56. 
t  lb.,  pp.  72-76. 


440 


simplicity  and  beauty,  a  trio  of  fallen  churches^'' — Greek,  Ro- 
man, and  Anglican,  "among  whom  scarcely  a  vestige  of  the  ori- 
ginal signs  of  a  true  Church  of  Christ  remains."*  Pass  we  now  to 
the  third  "  note." 


SECTION  II. 

Subject  continued,— The  three  "  notes,"  namely,  Unity,  Sanctity,  and  Discipline,  ap 
plied  to  the  Roman,  the  Anglican,  and  the  American  Episcopal  Churches. — Fal- 
lacy of. — On  the  last  note,  Ellcsby's  caution,  Bingham's  Origines  Ecclesiastica  and 
Bishop  Burgess,  of  Maine,  compared  with  Dr.  Aydelott  and  Dr.  F.  L.  Hawks,  etc. 

III.  Unity.  Eegarding  this  "  note"  we  observe  that,  as  all  Catho- 
lics, Greek,  Eoman,  Anglican,  and  American,  tell  us  there  can  be 
but  one  Catholic  Church  ;  so  that  Church  must  be  in  visible  unity 
with  itself;  and  that,  in  respect  both  oifaitli^  or  doctrine^  201^  fellow- 
ship. Also  that,  voluntary  separation,  or  excommunication,  from 
said  Catholic  Church,  excludes  from  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  etc.f 

Now,  the  incessant  boast  of  Catholic  unity,  as  the  inheritance  of 
each  and  all  those  herein  named,  and  which  they  are  particularly 
careful  to  place  in  contrast  with  what  they  are  pleased  to  term  the 
endless  diversities  and  divisions  of  discordant  and  self-constituted 
sects ;  and  which,  like  the  evanescent  smoke,  are  passing  away : 
this  constant  boast  of  unity,  with  them,  we  repeat,  is  as  familiar  as 
household  words.  Aye,  as  in  the  poetic  effusions  of  Byron,  while 
they  contemplate  with  self-complacent  and  admiring  gaze,  the 
mighty  structure,  they  are  wont  to  exclaim — 

"  But  thou  of  temples  old,  or  altars  new. 
Stand  alone — with  nothing  like  to  thee — 
Worthiest  of  God,  the  holy  and  the  true ! 
*  «■  *  *  -;«• 

Power,  glory,  strength,  and  beauty,  all  are  aisl'd 
In  this  eternal  ark  of  worshij)  undefil'd."' 

So  1  But, — This  boasted  unity  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding, 
the  reader  perceives,  on  the  very  article  indispensable  to  a  deter- 
mination of  what  constitutes  true  Catholic  unity,  a  diversity  and 
discordancy  of  views  among  these  writers,  totally  incompatible 
with,  and  destructive  of,  their  own  theory  :  their  "  marks  or  notes" 
of  "  the  Church,"  varying,  as  we  have  said,  horn,  four  to  one  hun- 
dred ! 

Again.  These  advocates  of  Church  Catholicity,  in  their  appli- 
cation of  this  "  note,"  Unity,  proceed  on  the  hypothesis,  as  re- 
marked above,  that  the  Greek,  the  Eoman,  and  the  Anglican  and 
American  churches  are  true  branches  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and 

*  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  April,  1S44,  pp.  237,  238. 
t  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Church,  Vol.  (.,  p.  63. 


441 

that  this  Church  is  "  one."  The  following  exhibit  will  furnish  to 
the  reader  somewhat  of  an  idea  of  the  quadruple  cord  of  unity 
which  binds  them.  "  The  Greek  and  Roman  Churches  mutually 
excommunicated  and  anathematized  each  other  more  than  a  thou- 
sand years  since,  and  still  persist  in  mutual  charges  of  heresy  and 
schism.  In  1569,  by  a  bull  of  Pope  Pius  V,,  "the  supreme  Head 
on  earth"  of  the  English  Church,  with  all  who  adhered  to  her, 
were  excommunicated  and  anathematized  :  since  j\'hich  the  whole 
English  Church"  (and  with  her,  her  American  daughter),  "  has 
been  considered  by  the  Church  of  Rome  as  involved  in  damnable 
heresy  and  schism ;  and  the  Church  of  Rome  stands  to  this  day 
charged  with  the  same  offenses  in  the  authorized  documents  and 
formularies  of  the  Church  of  England.  Nor  is  there  a  whit  more 
unity  between  the  English  and  Greek  churches,  than  between  the 
English  and  Roman.  The  Greek  Church  annually,  on  "  the  festi- 
val of  orthodoxy,"  "  anathematizes  those  who  refuse  adoration  to 
the  saints,  or  obeisance  to  their  pictures,  with  all  who  pay  them 
merely  feigned  homage,  and  all  who  regard  the  Lord's  Supper  as 
merely  figurative  and  sjanbolical,  and  all  who  deny  subjection  to 
the  first  seven  general  councils,"*  etc. 

1.  Then  of  the  Church  of  Rome  separately.  What  a  united 
body  !  When,  in  addition  to  the  numerous  schisms  in  the  popedom 
and  breaks  in  the  chain  of  her  alleged  uninterrupted  succession,! 
she  has  no  less  than  seven  different  modes  of  electing  her  popes  ; 
so,  on  the  subject  of  the  supremacy^  she  is  "  divided  into  four  par- 
ties— one  affirming  that  the  pope  is  the  fountain  of  all  power  politi- 
cal and  religious — another  teaching  that  he  has  only  ecclesiastic 
supremacy — a  third  party  affirming  that  this  ecclesiastic  dominion 
is  over  all  councils,  persons,  and  things  spiritual — and  a  fourth 
party  limiting  his  jurisdiction  to  a  sort  of  executive  presidency." 
And,  "history  deposes  that  she  has  changed,  in  whole,  or  in  part, 
her  tenets  and  her  discipline,  no  less  than  eighteen  times  in  all — 
that  is,  once,  at  least,  for  every  general  council :"  While,  in  the 
very  article  of  that  infallibility  on  which  she  alleges  to  build  her 
faith,  etc.,  four  classes  of  opinions  have  obtained.  The  first  party 
affirms  that  it  resides  in  the  head  of  the  Church,  that  is,  the  pope ; 
the  second  places  it  in  a  general  council,  in  which  the  Church  is 
represented,  albeit  such  a  general  council  has  never  yet  been  held ; 
the  third  insists  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  pope  and  the  general 
council  united ;  and  the  fourth  say,  that  it  is  to  be  sought  in 
neither  of  these,  but  in  the  whole  Church  responding  to  any 
question,  etc. 

Thus  much  for  Romish  Catholic  unity.  But,  perhaps  we  may 
be  more  successful  in  our  search  for  it  within  the  pale  of 

2.  The  Anglican  and  American  "  Protestant  Episcopal,"  «/m.?, 
"  Catholic  Church."     And  here,  let  it  be  noted,  first,  their  position 

*  Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  April  1844,  pp.  229,  230, 
t  See  Catalogues  of  the  Popes,  etc. 


442 

in  regard  to  the  very  title  of  their  Church.  A  portion  of  "  the 
Church," — but,  as  we  shall  see,  an  inconsiderable  portion — ex- 
hibit a  zealous  adhesion  to  the  name,  "  Protest  ant,"  knowing  that 
that  name  erased  from  their  escutcheon,  the  appellation  of  "  Evan- 
GKLicAL,"  of  which  they  hold  it  to  be  the  index,  would  pass  from 
their  midst  as  "the  morning  cloud  and  the  early  dew."  By  far 
the  larger  portion,  however,  either  directly  or  by  implication,  look 
upon  its  occupaiicy  "  in  the  title  page  of  the  Book  of  Common- 
Prayer,  as  prima  facie  evidence  of  schism  !"  Wherefore  ?  Oh,  it 
denies^  by  implication,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  Greek  and  Romish 
are  true  branches  of  the  one  Catholic  Church,  hol}^  and  apostolic ; 
and  on  the  other,  it  admits  as  such,  those  «7i^i-prelatical  sects, 
on  the  continent  of  Europe,  in  England,  and  in  America,  who 
bear  the  same  title!  And,  that  "the  British  Critic,"  that  heau 
ideal  of  High  Churchism,  is  not  alone  in  this  matter,  in  the 
"  Protestant  Churchman^''  bearing  date  Sept.  14,  1850,  page  26, 
a  correspondent,  over  the  signature  of  "  An  Old  Churchman," 
in  an  article  entitled  "  Catholic  and  Evangelical,"  complains  to 
the  "editor,"  that  the  "junior  clergy"  in  the  Church  are  "so 
tenacious  of  the  word  '■Catholic^  "  and  at  the  same  time  seem  almost 
to  shudder  at  the  word  "  Evangelical^''''  and  calls  upon  him  for  a 
"rational  account" — "if,  in  his  ample  means  of  knowledge,  he  can 
find,  and  present  his  many  readers  with  any" — "  of  this  strange 
anomaly." 

Now,  if  the  reader,  and  "  an  old  Churchman,"  will  tolerate  this 
single  digression,  we  would  offer  what  we  consider  to  furnish  the 
only  "rational  account"  of  said  "strange  anomaly,"  and  in  doing 
so,  we  would  first  make  use  of  his  (the  old  Churchman's)  own  lan- 
guage :  "  For  my  part,  I  must  say,  as  a  Christian  and  a  Protestant, 
I  know  no  standard  of  Catholicity  but  the  Bible."  And  again. 
"  The  word  evangelical  I  find  to  be  of  Bible  origin  in  the  original 
tongue,  while  the  other,  namely,  Catholic,  "  is  an  exotic^  But  the 
"junior  clergy"  and  Co.  as  above,  uniting  with  "an  old  Church- 
man" in  using  the  words  "  Evangelical"  and  "  Protestant"  as  con- 
vertible terms,  cannot  reconcile  them  with  the  hasis  of  their  Babel- 
theory  of  Catholicity,  namely :  "  Nulla  ecclesia  sine  Episcopo — 
No  Bishop,  No  Church."  In  other  words,  as  the  consistent  advo- 
cates of  the  prelatical  dogma  of  an  unbroken  apostolic  succession, 
they  can  find  no  Churchy  except  as  acknowledgedly  derived  from 
and  dependent  on  it,  for  its  very  Being.  They,  therefore,  insist, 
that,  as  the ,  logical  sequence  of  their  hypothesis,  as  consistent  pre- 
latists,  the  charge,  "  strange  anomaly,"  must  exchange  hands :  that 
it  belongs  to  the  theory  of  those  in  "the  Church,"  who,  on  the 
principle  of  the  absurd  attempt  to  unite  "  oil  and  water,"  fling 
out  to  the  breeze  their  banner,  bearing  the  imprint  of  the  illogical 
and  sophistical  motto  bequeathed  to  "  the  Church"  by  the  illustri- 
ous Hobart  on  his  death  bed,  "  Evangelical  truth,  apostolic 
ORDER."     We  must  hence  contend  that,  until  those  in  "  the  Church" 


443 

who  hold  that  the  Evangdico-Protestant  principle  constitutes  a 
"  note"  of  tnie  Catholicitj^, — and  which  they  admit  encircles  within 
its  ample  embrace,  those  sects  whom  the  "junior  clergy"  and  Co.  are 
pleased  to  style  "  wZ^ra-Protestants,"  as  welj  as  themselves — can  re- 
concile it  with  the  dogma  of  an  alleged  unbroken  apostolicity,  which 
affirms  that  there  can  be  no  true  Church,  no  true  ministry,  no  true 
sacraments  without  it  ;  in  other  words,  that,  independent  of  a  de- 
rivation fron,  througk,  and  hy  IT,  we  have  no  evidence  that  "  the 
Church"  "is  "  fastened  to  the  throne  of  God  :"  (Bishop  Mcllvaine !): 
We  repeat :  Until  these  two  palpably  contradictory  hypotheses  be 
reconciled,  we  must  contend  that  the  "junior  clergy"  and  Co.  have 
the  decided  vantage-ground  of  their  adversaries. 

But,    to    return.     This    diversity,   commencing   with  the  title 
inscribed   over  the  portal  of  "  the  Church,"  albeit  her  boasted 
unity  and   concord,    is  carried  into  the  inner  temple,   and  per- 
vades the  entire  camp.     Indeed,  Ave  affirm,   without  the  fear  of 
successful    contradiction,    that    there   are   at   this   very   moment 
within  the  pale  of  the  Anglican  and  American  Episcopal  Churches, 
no  less  than  four  separate  and  distinct  parties,  each  naturally 
charging   the   other   with   having   embraced    "another  gospel."* 
Our   space  of  course  will   not  here  allow    of  a   detailed  exhibit 
of  their  diffisrences.     Tractarians  denounce  all  who  refuse  to  come 
up  to  their   standard,  as  recreant  to   the   cause  they  profess  to 
love.     High    Churchmen  (Hobartists)  refuse  the  appellation,  Pu- 
seyite  or  Tractarian,  on  the  ground  that  theirs  was  and  is  the  only 
true  theor\\     Low    Churchmen  hold  that  High  Churchism  is  the 
sluice,  through  which  Tractarian  "  novelties"  and  "  heresies"  have 
flooded  "  the  Church,"  to  the  interruption,  if  not  the  destruction,  of 
her  peace.     While  a  fourth  party,  lower  than  the  lowest^   scouting 
the  dogma  of  an  unbroken  apostolicity  as  the  only  "  note"  or  as 
any  "  note,"  of  the  true   Church ;  complain  that  all  who   occupy 
higher  places  on  the  ladder  of  Catholicity,  are  so  blinded  by  igno- 
rance and  stultified  by  prejudice,  as  to  refuse  to  descend  to  their 
Evangelico-Protestant  level.     The  war  and  the   strife   of  words 
which  have  thus  been  carried  on  among  themselves,  especially  for  the 
last  ten  or  twelve  years,  for  severity  of  invective,  personal  abuse, 
and  mutual  denunciation,  through  the  mediums  both  of  the  press 
and  the  pulpit,  stands  without  a  rival  in  the  annals  of  the  past ! 
Not  to  tax  the  reader  with  a  tedious  thumbing  over  of  the  various 
weekly  issues  of  their  periodical  literature  for  that  space,  we  ven- 
ture our  reputation  on  a  verification,  to  him,  of  the  above,  by  the 
perusal   of  any  forth-coming  single  sheet,   ujjon  which  he  may 
please  to  lay  his  hand. 
The  next  note. 

IV.  Sanctity.     In  the  application  of  this  note, 

♦  See  the  Introduction  to  this  Treatise,  pp.  31-34. 


444 

1.  To  the  Church  of  Rome^  in  addition  to  wliat  has  been  al- 
ready offered  on  the  morals  of  the  popedom  and  of  the  papal 
Church  (see  pages  297-300),  and  to  which  we  refer  the  reader, 
we  add  the  following,,  as  a  few  of  the  specimens  of  doctrines 
taught  by  their  standards  for  the  spiritual  benefit  of  "  the  faithful." 

On  the  subject  of  the  second  commandment,  which  prohibits 
image  worship,  it  is  omitted  by  the  Church  of  Home,  she  dividing 
the  tenth  into  two  parts,  to  keep  up  the  complement. 

On  Auricular  Confession^  the  catechism  of  the  Council  of  Trent 
teaches,  that  "  according  to  the  Council  of  Lateran,  which  begins  : 
Omnes^  utriusque  sexus^  it  commands  all  the  faithful  to  confess 
their  sins  at  least  once  a  year,"*  which  confession  she  makes  "ne- 
cessary for  the  remission  of  sins." 

On  Priestly  Ahsolution.  "  The  voice  of  the  priest  is  to  be 
heard  as  that  of  Christ  himself,  who  said  to  the  lame  man,  "  Son, 
be  of  good  cheer,  thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee."f  "  The  form  of  the 
absolution  or  pardon  granted  by  the  priest  is  this :  I  absolve  thee.^''X 
"  Humbled  in  spirit,  the  sincere  penitent  cfists  himself  down  at  the 
feet  of  the  priest,"  in  whom,  as  "the  minister  of  God,  who  sits  in 
the  tribunal  of  penance  as  his  legitimate  judge,  he  venerates  the 
power  and  person  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  for  in  the  administra- 
tion of  this,  as  in  that  of  the  other  sacraments,  the  priest  repre- 
sents the  character,  and  discharges  the  functions  of  Jesus  Christ."§ 

On  Penance.  Its  efficacy,  etc.  "  Penance  is  the  channel 
through  which  the  blood  of  Christ  flows  into  the  soul,  and  washes 
away  the  stains  contracted  after  baptism."  "  There  is  no  sin,  how- 
ever grievous,  no  crime,  however  erroneous,  or  however  frequently 
repeated,  which  penance  does  not  remit."|| 

Leaving  the  Tridentine  Catechism,  we  pass  to  another  standard 
authority,  the  authentic  works  of  the  Saint  Ligori,  who  was  canon- 
ized by  Pope  Pius  VII.     Let  us  hear  him  on  the  subject, 

Of  Common  Cursing  or  Damning.  "  To  curse  insensible  crea- 
tures, such  as  the  wind,  rain,  etc.,  is  no  blasphemy,  unless  the  one 
who  curses  expressly  connects  them  in  relation  to  God,"  etc.^" 
"  To  curse  the  living,"  without  "  reflecting  about  his  soul,  in 
cursing  him  he  does  not  commit  a  grievous  sin."**  "  To  swear 
with  equivocation,  where  there  is  a  good  reason,  and  equivocation 
itself  is  lawful,  is  not  wrong,"  etc.ff 

Of  Gambling^  as  consecrated  for  priests  and  people  by  the  law 
of  custom.  "  The  canons,"  says  Ligori,  "  which  forbid  games  of 
hazard,  do  not  appear  to  be  received,  except  inasmuch  as  the  gam- 
bling is  carried  on  with  the  danger  of  scandal.  Be  it  known,  that 
the  above  mentioned  canonical  law  is  so  much  nullified  by  the 
contrary  custom,  that  not  only  laymen,  but  even  the  clergy,  do  not 

*  Catechism  Council  of  Trent,  p.  193. 

t  lb.,  p.  180.  t  lb.,  p.  181.  §  lb.,  p.  182. 

II  Catechism  Council  of  Trent,  pp.  180,  183. 

IT  Ligor.  Practical  Confessions,  N.  30.  **  lb.,  p.  29. 

tt  lb..  Lib.  III.,  N.  151,  Synopsis,  159. 


445 

sin,  if  tliey  play  cards  principally  for  the  sake  of  recreation,  and 
for  a  moderate  sum  of  money."  Again:  "  lie  who  makes  use 
of  knavery  and  cunning  Avhich  is  usually  practiced  in  gambling, 
and  which  has  the  sanction  of  custom,  is  not  bound  to  restore  what 
he  wins,"  etc.* 

Of  the  SahbafJi.  "Poverty  can  excuse  from  sin  in  working  on 
the  Sabbath."f  "  Merchandizing,  and  the  selling  of  goods  at  auc- 
tion on  Sundays,  is,  on  account  of  its  being  a  general  custom,  alto- 
gether lawful.":}:  "  Bull  lights  and  plays  allowed."  "  On  the  en- 
trance of  a  prince  or  nobleman  in  a  city,  it  is  lawful  on  a  Sunday 
to  prepare  the  drapery,  arrange  the  theater,  etc.,  and  to  act  a 
comedy ;  also  to  exhibit  the  bull- fights ;  the  reason  is,  because 
such  marks  of  joy  are  morally  necessary  for  the  public  weal."§ 

The  Commission  of  Sin  made  Laivful.  "  It  is  lawful  to  induce 
a  person  to  commit  a  smaller  sin,  in  order  to  avoid  one  that  is 
greater."!  This  law  licenses  drunkenness.  "  It  is  no  sin  to  get 
drunk  by  the  advice  of  a  physician,"  etc.^  And  admits  them  to 
the  communion.  "  It  is  lawful  to  administer  the  sacrament  to 
drunkards,  if  they  are  in  the  probable  danger  of  death,  and  had 
previously  the  intention  of  receiving  them."*" 

Finally,  this  Saint  Ligori  has  told  us,  speaking  of  the  Romish 
clergy,  "  That,  among  the  priests  Avho  live  in  the  world,  it  is  rare, 
and  very  rare,  to  find  any  that  are  good."f  f 

We  shall  offer  no  comment  on  the  above,  but  leave  the  reader 
to  his  own  inferences  as  to  the  alleged  immaculate  sanctity  of  the 
Romi-jh  Church,  and  pass  on  to  apply  this  note,  Sanctity  : 

2.  To  the  Protestant  E^nsco-pal  Churcli^  Anglican  and  Ameri- 
can. Mr.  Palmer,  in  his  "Treatise  on  the  Church  of  Christ,  de- 
signed chiefly  for  the  use  of  students  in  theology,"  defines  the 
above  "  note,"  Sanctity,  to  consist  in,  "  first,  the  sanctity  of  its 
Head,  and  of  those  who  founded  it ;  secondly,  the  holiness  of  its 
doctrine  ;  thirdly,  the  means  of  holiness  which  it  has  in  the  sacra- 
ments :  fourthly,  the  actual  holiness  of  its  members ;  and  fifthly, 
the  divine  attestations  of  holiness  in  miracles.":}::}: 

Now,  of  these  several  particulars,  w^e  remark  : 

First,  that  of  the  actual  sanctity  of  Christ  and  his  apostles^  there 
is  no  room  for  remark. 

Second,  "  Holiness  of  doctrine."  This  claim,  as  put  forth  by 
"the  Church,"  Protestant  Episcopal,  if  views  the  most  incon- 
gruous and  conflicting, — Evangelical  and  Romanistic,  Calvinistic, 
semi-Calvinistic,  Arminian,  and  Pelagian  and  Universalist, — are  to 
be  taken  in  evidence,  then,  we  confess  she  is  entitled  to  it.  To  a 
careful  observer,  all  these  differences  may  be  seen  to  float  on  the 
surface  of  those  troubled  waters  of  controversy  which  for  years 

*  lb.,  n.  882,  883,  Synopsis,  p.  235.  t  Vo.,  n.  32,  33,  Synopsis,  pp.  52,  53. 

X  lb.,  n.  293,  Synopsis,  p.  192.  §  lb.,  n.  304,  Synopsis,  p.  193. 

II  lb.,  n.  77,  Synopsis,  p.  255.  ^  lb.,  n.  76,  Synopsis,  p.  254. 

**  Ligori,  6.  n.  81,  Synopsis,  260.  ft  lb.,  Synopsis,  p.  180. 
XX  Treatise,  etc.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  137. 


446 

past  have  shaken,  and  which  still  continue  to  shake,  that  Church 
to  its  very  center.  But  here  again,  for  want  of  space,  we  cannot 
enter  into  detail.  It  must  suflice  that  we  single  out  two  articles  of 
difference,  by  way  of  illustration.  These  are,  "the  religion  of 
Baptismal  regeneration,  and  the  religion  of  A§j?V/ifua^  regeneration." 

Now,  speaking  of  these,  the  Eev.  Dr.  Aydelott,  a  distinguished 
presbyter  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  in 
a  work  published  by  him  in  1844  on  "  The  Condition  and  Pros- 
pects" of  his  Church,  quotes  from  an  article  which  apj^eared  in 
"  The  Churchman^^  of  April  10th,  1847,  under  the  caption  of 
"  Bishop  IVIeade  and  Baptism,"  and  bearing  the  signature  of 
"  Occidentalis,"  in  which  Bishop  Meade,  having  written  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  "baptismal  regeneration"  theory,  said  "Occidentalis" 
demands  to  know  hoAV  "a  Christian  bishop  dares  openly,  through- 
out the  Church,  to  impugn  the  Church's  teaching  upon  baptism," 
etc.,  to  which  he  adds,  "one  or  the  other  of  us  must  he  wrong, 
and  why  not  have  it  declared  at  once  which  of  us  it  is  ?  The 
Christianity  of  him  who  holds  the  principle  of  baptism  con- 
sistently, is,  throughout,  a  different  religion  from  that  of  such  men 
as  Bishop  Meade.  There  is  no  reconciling  them,  they  cannot  live 
together,  except  in  the  end,  the  house  that  holds  them  fall,"  etc. 
"  Yea,"  says  Dr.  Aydelott,  "  most  true,  this,  Occidentalis ;  and 
most  manly  spoken."  But  the  learned  doctor  goes  on  to  concede, 
in  the  view  of  these  differences,  the  existence  of  "  Two  entirely 
different  gospels  and  kinds  of  religion''''  in  "  THE  Church,"  and  says 
that  "  The  church  that  is  made  up  of  such  heterogeneous  materials 
must  GET  RID  of  one  or  the  other  or  come  to  naught.  There  is  no 
possibility,"  he  adds,  "  of  two  such  sj^stems  always  living  together. 
They  are  mutually  destructive.  Just  as  the  one  flourishes,  must 
the  other  go  down.  The  church  that  attempts  to  comprehend  both, 
instead  of  being  a  garden  of  the  Lord,  exhibiting  throughout 
fruits  fair  to  the  eye  and  good  for  food,  must,  sooner  or  later,  be- 
come little  else  than  a  vast  moral  desert,  fall  of  noxious  beasts 
and  all  unclean  things — a  hideous  spiritual  aceldama."* 

Third.  "  The  means  of  holiness  lohich  it  has  in  the  sacraments^ 
The  doctrine  of  the  opus  operatum  of  the  sacraments,  or  sacra- 
mental grace,  is  here  intended.  "  The  Church"  divided  on,  the 
same  as  above. 

Fourth.  "  The  actual  holiness  of  its  members.''''  Of  course,  these 
comprehend  the  members  clerical,  as  bishops,  etc.,  and  lay.  See  on 
pages  218,  219,  the  evidence  that  according  to  the  theory  of  all 
classes  of  prelatists,  no  amount  of  ignorance,  heresy,  or  moral  tur- 
pitude of  character  of  any  of  the  links  can,  by  any  possibility, 
vitiate,  nullify,  or  destroy,  the  succession  apostolical !  Then  turn 
to  Mr.  Palmer,  who,  on  the  subject  of  Church-membership,  so 
zealously  advocates  the  necessity  of  their  actual  holiness,"  tells  us 
as  follows: — 

*  See  above  work,  pp.  121-129,  New  York,  Mark  H.  Newman. 


447 

"  Those  who  arc  sinners,  and  devoid  of  lively  faith,  are  some- 
times externally  members  of  the  Church.  Manifest  sinners  are 
sometimes  external  members  of  the  Church,  and  exercise  the  pri- 
vileges of  its  members.  Visible  sanctity  of  life  is  not  requisite  for  ad- 
mission  to  the  Church  of  Christ.''^ 

No.  Not  on  the  part  of  parents  who  present  their  children  for 
incorporation  into  the  Church  by  baptism.  For,  "  visible  sanctit}'-," 
as  a  qualitication  for  such  presentment,  can  be  dispensed  Avith  in 
virtue  of  their  alleged  regeneration  "  with"  God's  "Holy  Spirit" 
at  the  baptismal  Ibnt,  and  their  consequent  "  adoption"  as  a 
"  child"  of  God,  and  incorporation  into  his  "  holy  Church,"  when 
infants.*  No  want  of  "  visible  sanctity"  on  the  part  of  parents  or 
sponsors  after  baptism  can  forfeit  or  alienate  their  claims  to  bap- 
tism for  their  children.  That  this  leaven  leavens  the  whole  lump, 
in  other  words,  that  it  is  a  principle  of  common  operation  in  the 
whole  Church,  we  quote  in  evidence  from  an  Episcopal  charge  de- 
livered by  Bishop  Burgess  before  his  Convention  in  Maine,  July 
10th,  1850,  on  "  Great  Principles."  In  alluding  to  the  subject  of 
present  remark,  he  speaks  of  "  the  rejection  of  infant  baptism 
by  many," — the  Baptists,  of  course, — and  of  "  its  limitation  by 
others,"f  that  is  Presbyterians.  Presbyterians  plead  guilty  to  the 
charge.  Yes.  They  do  insist  on  a  reasonable  amount  of  evidence 
of  their  possession  of  internal  grace  by  "  their  visible  sanctity,"  as 
a  qualification  to  assume  the  solemn  vows  and  perform  the  momen- 
tous obligations  devolving  on  parents,  etc.,  in  behalf  of  their  bap- 
tized children.  Their  language  to  all  others  is  :  "  But  unto  the 
wicked,  God  saith,  what  hast  thou  to  do  to  declare  my  statutes,  or 
that  thou  shouldest  take  my  covenant  in  thy  mouth?"'  To  this 
"  limitation"  of  the  right  of  baptism  to  the  children  of  parents 
furnishing  the  evidence  of  "  visible  sanctity,"  however,  the  bishop 
objects  that  it  "  severs  the  ties  which  ought  to  bind  the  rising  ge- 
neration to  the  Christian  name  and  covenant."  It  is  a  species  of 
"  exclusiveness"  of  which  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  may 
proudly  boast  that  she  is  "  not  guilty."  She  has  seen  her  account  in 
it.  She  has  made  broad  capital  out  of  it.  Bishop  Burgess's  objection 
to  the  Presbyterian  "  limitation"  in  these  premises,  we  repeat,  in- 
volves the  hypothesis  of  the  hirth-rifjlit  baptism  of  all  within  the 
pale  of  "  THE  Church,"  not  only,  but,  founded  as  it  is  on  the 
P.aseyite  canon  of  Mr.  Palmer,  that  "  visible' sanctity  of  life  is  not 
requisite  for  admission  to  the  Church  of  Christ  b}'"  baptism; 
hundreds,  yea,  thousands,  have  been  seduced  within  her  pale,  to 
escape  the  application  in  the  so-called  "  wZim-Protestant"  Churches 
in  which  they  were  the  baptized  members,  of  the  above  scriptural 
"  limitation"  of  their  baptismal  rights.* 

(1)  Psalm  50  :  16. 
*  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  Office  for  Public  Baptism  of  Infants, 
t  Proleslant  Churchman,  Au^.  17,  18.50.    See  also  the  Introduction  to  this  Treatise, 
t   See  Introduction  to  this  Treatise. 


448 

Thus  much,  then,  of  one  of  the  "Gi'cat  Principles"  of  this  very 
learned,  pious,  amiable,  and  zealous  LOW  OHUKCH  prelate  of 
the  diocese  of  Maine.  Let  us,  however,  advance  another  step.  Is 
"  visible  sanctity  of  life"  esteemed  to  be  requisite  "for  admission" 
to  confinnatimi  f  Answer. — "  The  Church  hath  thought  good  to 
order  that  none  shall  be  confirmed  but  such  as  can  say  the  Creed, 
the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  the  Ten  Commandments  ;  and  can  answer 
to  such  other  questions  as  in  the  short  catechism  are  contained,"* 
etc.  The  same  qualifications  are  specified  in  the  closing  address  to 
sponsors  in  the  baptismal  service.  What,  then,  is  the  practice  ? 
The  Eev.  Dr.  Aydelott  already  quoted,  furnishes  us  with  the  fol- 
lowing as  a  specimen:     "The  Eev.  Mr. ■  had  notice  of  an 

Episcopal  visitation  in  his  parish.  The  bishop  arrived,  and  when 
the  list  of  candidates  was  handed  to  him,  aj)peared  much  cha- 
grined that  the  number  was  so  small.     He  added,  however,  '  Never 

mind,  never  mind ;  I   recollect  that   in  the  diocese  of ,  the 

bishop,  in  the  course  of  his  visitation,  once  came  to  a  church, 
where  he  found  to  his  great  disappointment  very  few  to  be  con- 
firmed. He  appointed  another  day,  a  few  weeks  after,  to  hold  a 
second  confirmation,  and  upon  returning  he  had  the  satisfaction  of 
confirming  over  a  hundred  Tnore.  And  as  I  intend  to  stay  here 
another  Sunday,  then  we  can  have  a  larger  confirmation.'  "f  Now, 
true.  Some  few  of  the  clergy,  like  the  above,  wall  present  none 
for  confirmation  but  on  the  ground  of  their  personal  Christian  ex- 
perience. This  circumstance  accounts  for  the  "chagrin"  of  the 
bishop,  as  above,  in  finding  so  few  to  be  confirmed.  And  the 
pastor,  having  complained  to  the  bishop  that  "  the  thoughtless, 
the  worldly,  and  the  self-deceived  have  been  pressed  forward  in 
throngs  to  the  altar!"  said  to  him,  "I  can  see  no  reason  to  expect 
that  the  catalogue  will  be  much,  if  at  all,  increased  by  next 
Sunday.":};     Li  the  next  place. 

Is  "  visible  sanctity"  required  as  a  condition  of  admission  to  the 
Lord''s  Su2y£)er  ?  The  common  sentiment  is,  that  no  other  qualifi- 
cations are  required  as  a  passport  to  the  Holy  Communion,  than 
those  required  for  confirmation.  Dr.  Aydelott  informs  us,  that 
"  he  himself  was  admitted  to  the  communion  by  one  of  the  most 
distinguished  ministers  of  the  Church  without  the  slightest  ex- 
amination, either  as  it  respected  his  views  of  the  gospel,  or  his  ex- 
perience of  its  power.  He  might  have  been  not  only  spiritually 
dead,  but  utterly  ignorant  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  and  even 
an  infidel,  for  aught  his  pastor  knew."  It  is  in  this  way  he  ac- 
counts for  the  fact,  that  "  very  many  unconverted  men"  having 
"  found  their  way  into  the  churches, — some  thoughtless,  some 
self-deceived,  and  others  still  worse,  but  all  worldly,  worldly  ;"  the 
"  religious  world  about  them  verj^  generally  suppose    that    the 

*  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  Order  of  Confirmation. 

t  Aydelott's  Cond  and  Pros,  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  pp.  47,  A8. 

X  lb".,  p.  48. 


449 

standard  of  piety  is  lower  in  their  Clmrcli  than  in  the  other  ortho- 
dox denominations."  And,  it  should  be  particularly  noted  in  this 
connection,  that  he  affirms  "  his  sense  of  the  evil"  to  have  been 
enlarged  to  a  sad  extent,"  over  a  period  of  "  thirty  years"!  "The 
influence  of  such  communicants,"  says  he,  "is  peculiarly  disastrous." 
And  he  adds: — "  Better,  we  have  often  thought,  better  to  go  out 
into  the  highways  and  hedges  and  preach  the  gospel,  than  minis- 
ter in  a  Church  where  a  large  majority  of  its  community  are  of 
such  a  character.''''^     Finally,  we  ask, 

Is  "  visible  sanctity  of  life"  required  as  a  condition  of  admitting 
candidates  to  the  ministry  ?  Here  again  we  quote  Dr.  Aydelott. 
Speaking  of  "  the  spiritual  character  and  call  of  the  candidate," 
he  asks  :  "  Have  we  been  sufficiently  careful  to  ascertain,  so  far  as 
man  in  the  light  of  God's  word  can  judge,  whether  those  who  ap- 
ply to  be  admitted  to  the  ministry  are  really  regenerated  men,  and 
called  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  preach  the  gospel?"  etc.  And  he  re- 
plies :  "  Would  that  we  could  say,  we  had  !  But,"  he  adds,  "  mul- 
titudes of  facts  at  this  moment  crowd  upon  the  mind  of  the  writer, 
all  bearing  alarming  testimony  to  past  unfaithfulness.  But  one 
will  he  here  state.  He  has  been  somewhat  conversant  with  ex- 
aminations for  the  ministry  in  various  parts  of  our  Church,  cmd 
Tievcr^  except  on  a  single  occasion^  has  he  known  a  question  put  to 
a  candidate,  the  object  of  which  was,  to  ascertain  whether  he  had 
proper  views  of  the  sacred  office  and  of  a  call  to  it,  or  had  been 
himself  the  subject  of  that  spiritual,  holy  change  which  is  essential 
to  Christian  character:"  and  "he  cannot  but  fear  that  many  un- 
converted men,— men  who  know  nothing  spiritually  of  the  truth 
and  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  have  been  admitted  to  the  ministry 
of  our  Church." 

We  here  again  make  no  comment,  further  than  to  remind  the 
reader,  that  the  author  from  whom  we  quote,  as  above — the  _Kev. 
B.  P.  Aydelott,  D.D. — ^lias  long  been  known  as  a  distinguished 
presbyter  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  was  for  years 
rector  of  one  of  the  principal  churches  of  that  denomination  in  the 
city  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio.f 

Pass  Ave  now  to  the  last  "  note"  of  true  Catholicity. 

Y.    DlSCIPUNE. 

1.  Of  the  existence  and  application  of  Discipline  in  the  Gliurch,  of 
Rome,  no  one  in  the  least  acquainted  with  her  history  and  the 
practical  workings  of  her  system,  can  be  ignorant.  The  fear  and 
dread  of  "  the  faithful,  lest,  at  the  confessional,  the  acknowledg- 
ments of  sins  of  omission  and  of  commission  should  subject  them 
to  the  priestly  power  of  "  the  keys,"  evidence  that  its  administra- 
tion keeps  pace  with  every  pulsation  of  her  heart.     It  is  the  very 

*  Aydelott's  Condition  and  Prospects,  etc.,  pp.  48.  . 

t  He  has  since  seceded,  and  united  himself  to  the  New  School  Presbyterian  Church. 

21) 


450 

life  of  that  "  spiritual  despotism"  which  for  so  many  centuries  has 
exercised  an  unlimited  dominion  over  the  consciences  of  her  mil- 
lions of  enslaved  subjects.  Protestants,  however,  holding  that 
discipline  consists  in,  (not  that  those  "  who  rule,"  have  dominion 
over  the  faith,"  but)  that  they  "  are  helpers  of  the  joy,"'  of  the 
members  of  Christ's  nock,  by  admonition,  and  the  exscinding  of  the 
heretical  and  immoral ; '  view  the  discipline  of  the  Church  of  Eome 
as  defective,  not  only,  but  that  it  is  for  the  most  part  wholly  un- 
scriptural.     But,  next — 

2.  Of  the  Discipline  of  the  Protestant  episcopal  Church.     And, 

First.  The  Anglican  branch.  True.  The  homily  for  Whit- 
sunday makes  "  the  right  use  of  discipline,"  a  note  of  the  true 
Church.  But  we  now  affirm  that  the  English  Church,  as  a  Cliurch, 
is  totally  destitute  of  all  scriptural  discipline.  Yea,  "  the  keys  of 
discipline"  have  long  since  by  her  been  given,  or  rather  sold,  to 
the  State !  The  entire  administration  of  what  they  have  of  dis- 
cipline in  that  Church,  is  vested  in  the  chancellor,  a  layman,  and 
in  the  Court  of  Arches,  whose  judicial  powers  extend  not  only  over 
the  clergy  and  laity,  but  even  over  bishops  themselves.     Proof: 

Bishop  Croft,  in  a  work  entitled,  "  The  Naked  Truth,"  etc., 
speaking  of  "  the  authorit}^  of  bishops  to  govern  as  well  as  to  or- 
d!ain,"  in  virtue  of  Christ's  commission  to  them,  '  whose  soever  sins 
ye  remit,'  etc.,  says,  "yet  this  is  in  a  manner  quite  relinquished 
unto  their  chancellors,  laymen,"  etc.  And  he  exclaims :  "  Good 
God !  what  a  horrible  abuse  is  this  of  the  divine  authority  ! — 
When  was  it  ever  heard  of  since  the  beginning  of  the  world,  that 
laymen  should  judge  of  sjnrituals .'" — And  he  says :  "  By  this  au- 
thority the  chancellor." — whose  "  pretended  power  is  sometimes 
purchased  with  a  sum  of  money" — "  takes  upon  him  to  sentence 
not  only  laymen,  but  clergymen  also,  brought  into  his  court  for 
any  delinquency,  and  in  the  court  of  arches  there  they  sentence 
even  bishops  themselves."  Bishop  Croft  narrates  the  following  in- 
cident in  illustration.  "  I  remember,"  says  he,  "  when  the  Bishop 
of  Wells,  hearing  a  cause  corruptly  managed,  and  coming  into 
the  court  to  rectify  it,  the  chancellor,  Dr.  Duke,  fairly  and  man- 
nerly bid  him  begone,  for  he  had  no  power  there  to  act  any  thing, 
and  therewithal  pulls  out  his  patent  sealed  by  the  bishop's  prede- 
cessor, which,  like  Perseus's  shield  with  the  Gorgon's  head,  fright- 
ened the  poor  bishop  out  of  the  court."*  The  recent  cases  of  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Sales  vs.  the  Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  who,  it  will  be  recol- 
lected was  imjmsoned  by  said  court ;  and  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Gor- 
ham  V8.  the  Bishop  of  Exeter,  may  also  be  quoted  to  the  same 
end. 

But,  in  addition  to  the  above,  as  decisive  of  what  is  here  alleged 
in  reference  to  the  absence  of  all  scriptural  discipline  in  the  English 
Church  as  such,  is  her  own  acknowledgment  of  ike  total  loss.,  to  her., 

(1)  2  Cor.  1  :  24.     (2)  Col.  2  :  21. 

*  The  Naked  Truth,  etc.,  Collection  of  Tracts  (scarce) ,  pp.  381-383. 


451 

of  all  "  godly  discipline!'^  In  the  "  communication,"  it  is  said, 
that  "  in  the  primitive  church  there  was  a  godly  discipline,  that  at 
the  beginning  of  Lent,  such  persons  as  stood  convicted  of  notori- 
ous sins  were  put  to  open  penance,"  etc.  "  Instead  whereof,  (until 
the  said  discipline  may  be  restored  again,  which  is  much  to  be 
wished,)  it  is  thought  good," — What?  Why,  "that  provision  is 
made  for  a  confession,  and  praj^er  for  its  restoration,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  Lent,  once  a  year  "/  Why,  then,  we  ask,  has  not  this 
"  godly  discipline"  of  the  "  primitive  church"  long  since  been  re- 
stored? Take  the  following,  which  we  quote  from  the  best  Church 
authorities : — 

"  It  ought  surely  to  be  taken  into  consideration,  whether  those 
who  are  intrusted  on  behalf  of  the  Church,"  [namely,  the  two 
houses  of  convocation,]  "  do  enough  towards  the  discharge  of  a 
good  conscience,  in  wishing,  once  a  year,  at  reading  the  office"  [of 
commination]  "  on  Ash- Wednesday,  that  the  discipline  of  the 
Church  Avas  restored.  Or  whether  it  lie  not  upon  them  to  do 
something  toward  regaining  it,  that  the  Church  may  be  restored 
to  the  power  it  hath  from  Christ,"  etc. — "Wishes  are  indeed 
marks  of  a  good  intention,  and  an  acceptable  zeal,  where  no  more 
is  possible  to  be  done  ;  but  ever  to  wish  and  make  no  attempt  to- 
ward the  thing  wished  for,  if  it  be  zeal,  is  such  as  is  a  reproach  to 
itself"- 

Again.  "  The  restoring  of  the  ancient  discipline  is  earnestly 
desired  by  the  Church  of  England  in  her  office  of  coinmination  / 
the  performance  of  which  pious  wish,  or  the  endeavoring  it  at 
least,  is  a  duty  incumbent  on  our  governors,"  etc. — "  But,  wi^h 
due  submission  be  it  spoken,  methinks  it  looks  too  much  like  dis- 
sembling with  God,  and  imposing  on  the  people,  to  have  this  pas- 
sage stand  in  our  public  liturgy,  and  read  solemnly  in  our  congre- 
gations once  a  year, — and  yet  no  attempt  made  toward  the  restor- 
ing of  this  godly  and  much  wished  for,  but  still  neglected  disci- 
pline."! 

Finally,  says  the  learned  Bingham,  "  The  Church  of  England 
has  for  tvio  hundred  years  wished  for  the  restoration  of  discipline, 
and  yet  it  is  but  an  ineffective  Avish.  For  nothing  is  done  toward 
introducing  it,  but  rather  things  are  gone  backward,  and  there  is 
less  of  discipline  for  these  last  sixty  years^  since  the  times  of  the 
unhappy  confusions,  than  there  was  before. ":j:     Turn  we  now, 

Second,  to  the  American  branch  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  "  She  is  wholly  unconnected  with  the  State.  She  has 
no  difficulty  in  the  way  of  enacting  and  executing  such  canons  of 
discipline  as  would  preserve  her  purity."     But,  let  us  see. 

This  Church  claims  to  have  such  "  godly  discipline."  Bishop 
Burgess  of  Maine,  in  the  "charge"  already  alluded  to,  speaks  "of 

*  Church  of  England,  Wish,  (1703,)  pp.  4,  5,  etc. 

t  Ellesby's  Caution  against  III  Company,  (1705,)   Preface,  pp.  2,  3. 

{  Bingham's  Origines  Ecclesiaslica,  Book  XV.,  Chapter  IX.,  Section  8. 


452 

the  cautious  rules  of  our  discipline,"*  etc.  Let  us  now  see  what 
Dr.  vVydelott  has  to  ofier  on  this  subject.f  He  is  treating  of  the 
spiritual  character  required  by  Scripture,  of  those  "  who  under- 
take to  manage  the  affairs  of  the  Church."  "  Except  a  man  be 
born  again,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God,"  etc. ;  and  hence 
argues  that,  "  to  spiritual  men  belong  spiritual  things."  He  then 
applies  this  principle  to  their  ecclesiastical  arrangements,  and  in- 
quires,— "  Have  we,  as  a  Church,  kept  this  plain  Bible  principle 
ever  in  view,  and  been  duly  careful  to  carry  it  out  in  all  our  ar- 
rangements?" And  then  asks  :  "How  is  it  with  our  vestries  ?  To 
these,  he  says,  belongs  the  management  not  only  of  the  "  temporal," 
but  much  also  of  the  spiritual  "  affairs  of  the  Church  ;"  for  exam- 
ple, chosing  the  minister,  electing  delegates  to  the  convention,  tak- 
ing one  of  the  first  steps  towards  the  admission  of  candidates  to 
the  holy  office,  etc.  "Now,"  asks  he,  "  are  we  careful  to  provide 
that  none  but  pious  men  should  be  chosen  to  so  important  an 
ofiice  ?"  And  he  answers  :  "  Scarcely  ever  is  this  done.  The 
writer  knows  of  not  a  single  diocese  in  which,  if  his  recollections 
are  correct,  the  vestry  must  be  chosen  from  among  the  communi- 
cants of  the  Church." 

Again,  he  asks :  "  And  what  is  the  constitutional  safeguard  of 
our  diocesan  conventions?  These  elect  the  bishop,  present  him 
for  trial,  and  appoint  the  standing  committees,  and  delegates  to  the 
general  convention,"  etc.  "Surely,"  says  he,  "  such  a  body  ought 
to  be  composed  of  wise  and  good  men,  in  the  highest,  the  Christian, 
sense  of  these  terms.  And  yet,"  he  adds,  "  the  writer,  after  many 
years  acquaintance  with  most  parts  of  our  Church,  can  find  but 
two  dioceses  in  which  members  of  the  convention  are  required  to 
be  communicants.  He  is  confident  indeed  of  only  one  /  it  is  to  be 
hoped,  however,  there  may  be  others." 

Again.  "  How  is  it  with  our  standing  committees  ?  Their 
duties  are  almost  entirely  spiritual. — And  yet,"  he  asks,  "  are  there 
more  than  two  or  three  dioceses  whose  legislation  requires  the 
members  of  this  body  to  be  professors  of  religion  ?  The  writer 
knows  not  of  so  many,"  but  speaks  of  "  signs"  and  indulges  hopes 
of  improvement,  etc. 

Then,  of  "  the  General  Convention. ''''  "  This,"  says  he,  "  is  the 
grand  council  of  our  Church.  It  is  our  supreme  legislative  body. 
— Its  decisions  are  final  and  universally  binding."  "  Here,"  he  adds, 
"  will  it  not  naturally  be  expected  by  every  intelligent,  pious  per- 
son, that  we  shall  find  in  our  Constitution,  the  most  clear,  careful 
and  strong  provisions  made  to  guard  against  the  admission  of  any 
into  this  body,  but  men  of  eminent  religious  character — men  full  of 
faith  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  Would,"  he  exclaims,  "  that  it 
were  so  !  But  let  one  closely  examine  the  last  edition  of  the  Con- 
stitution and  Canons  of  the  General  Convention,  as  published  in 
Swords's  Almanac  for  1845,  and  he  will  discover  not  a  single  line, 

*  See  "  Charge"  etc.,  published  in  the  Protestant  Chii.rchmnv,  Ang:i)st  17,  1850. 
t  See  his  Work,  Stale  and  Prospects  of  the  I'roteslant  Epis-i^pa!  Church. 


453 

not  a  ward,  reqtdHng  even  a  prqfessimi  of  religion  as  necessary 
to  mcmbersMp  in  that  body.  So  that  a  layman,  without  even  the 
form  of  godliness,  a  perfectly  worldly  man,  even  an  infidel,  may 
take  his  seat  in  this  our  grand  council,  and  thus  exercise  a  con- 
trolling influence  in  the  most  vital  matters  affecting  our  whole 
Church  " ! 

Finally,  Dr.  Aydelott  throws  into  contrast  with  this  organiza- 
tion of  their  "  ecclesiastical  fabric"  "  from  the  Vestry  upward  to 
the  General  Convention,"  and  the  "  evils"  thence  resulting,  those 
of  other  "  ecclesiastical  bodies,"  namely  :  "  sessions,  associations, 
presbyteries,  councils,  synods,  conferences,  consociations,"  etc. : 
and  says,  "  It  ought  to  be  to  us  all,  and  certainly  to  every  en- 
lightened, pious  member  of  our  Church  it  will  be,  a  matter — not 
of  envious  reflection  but — of  sincere  thanksgiving  to  the  Great 
Head  of  the  Church,  that  scarcely  any,  if  any,  of  the  various  other 
evangelical  denominations  have  been  betrayed  into  our  organic 
error." 

Let  us  then,  in  conclusion  on  this  subject,  look  in  the  face  the 
practical  workings  of  the  ecclesiastical  organization  of  the  P.  E. 
Church  in  the  article  of  "  Disciplines^''  on  the  testimou}'  of  that  emi- 
nently distinguished  preacher,  divine,  ecclesiastical  historian  and 
canonist,  the  Kev.  Francis  L.  Hawks,  D.D.,  now  Rector  of  Cal- 
var}-  Church  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

The  learned  doctor,  in  his  "  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,"  speaking 
of  "  Article  YI,"  of  "  the  Constitution,"  etc.,  on  *'  the  mode  of  trying 
clergymen^'' — "  whether  bishop,  or  presbyter,  or  deacon,"  says : 
"  In  fact,  the  weakest  and  most  defective  part  of  our  whole  eccle- 
siastical system,  is  the  department  of  the  judiciary.'''''*  And,  on  the 
subject  of  the  general  discipline  of  the  Church,  under  "  Canon 
XLIL,"  which  treats  "  Of  crimes  and  scandals  to  he  censured^''  the 
doctor  says  : — "  It  is  true  the  power  of  excommunication  does  be- 
long to  the  Church,  it  does,  too,  deprive  of  all  privileges  of  Church 
membership,  and  it  is  the  most  awful  power  ever  confided  by 
Heaven  to  man ;  rightfully  exercised,  its  consequences  (though  the 
world  may  scorn  them)  are  of  the  most  terrific  character,  if  Scrip- 
ture be  true:  but,"  he  demands,  ^'"who  ever  Jteard  of  the  excommu- . 
nication  of  a  layman  in  our  branch  of  the  apostolic  Church  f  The 
LAW  IS  A  DEAD  LKTTEE.  Neither  the  General  Convention,  nor  any 
State  Convention,  have  ever  provided  any  "  rules  or  process"  for 
excommunication.  There  is  not  a  clergyman  in  the  Church,  who, 
if  he  were  desirous  to  excommunicate  an  offender,  would  know  how 
to  take  the  very  first  step  in  the  process.  It  certainly  is  not  to  be 
done  according  to  his  mere  whim,  and  if  it  were  so  done,  it  is  as 
certainly  invalid.  Shall,  then,  the  presbyter  alone  do  it,  or  shall 
it  be  done  by  his  bishop,  or  by  a  conclave  of  bishops,  or  by 
bishops  and  presbyters,  or  by  a  State  Convention  including  the 
laity,  or  by  the  General  Convention  including  the  laity  again  ? 

*"  Ecclesiastical  Contributions."     Swords  and  Stanford,  New  York,  IS  11  ;  pp.  33.  "- 


45^ 

No  man  can  answer,  for  there  is  no  rtjle  on  the  sub-iect,  AND 
WE  ARE  GLAD  THAT  IT  IS  SO :  for  our  excommunication 
bringing  with  it  no  penalty  which  would  be  felt :" — no,  Rev.  Sir, 
even  though  it  were  to  "  deprive  of  all  privileges  of  Church  mem- 
bership"— "  depriving  a  man  of  no  civil  rights,  would  be  laughed 
at  as  a  mere  brutum  fulmen.''^* 

AVhat  now  think  you,  reader,  "  of  the  cautious  rules  of  disci- 
pline" of  the  P.  E.  Church,  of  which  Bishop  Burgess  speaks? 
Surely  upon  us  devolves  not  the  task  of  an  attempt  to  reconcile 
the  claim  of  the  learned  bishop  in  these  premises,  with  the  con-' 
flicting  statement  of  facts  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  Aydelott,  and  the  expo- 
sition of  the  canons  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Hawks.  "We,  therefore,  sub- 
mit the  subject  to  the  decision  of  the  candid,  without  further 
comment. 


SECTION  ni. 

Conclusion. — "  The  Holy  Catholic  Church" — How  known  1  Where  found  ?  Scrip- 
turally  defined. — Line  of  designation  between  the  True  and  the  False  Church. — 
Adopted  by  Luther.— The  Continental  Reformers.— The  XlXth  of  the  XXXIX 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England. — Cranmer,  Hooker,  Bishops  Sanderson  and  Cosin, 
"  Statement  of  the  Distinctive  Principles  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Society  for 
the  Promotion  of  Evangelical  Knowledge,"  Bishops  Meade,  Mcllvaine,  Lee,  Bur- 
gess, etc..  Dr.  Stone,  etc,  etc. — Incongruity  of  their  statements  with  the  admitted 
theory  of  Prelacy,  etc. — Application  of  the  above  marks  or  notes  of "'  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church,"  to  the  Anti-Prelatical  theory  of — I.  Aposlolicity — In  the  sense  of 
an  U.NBROKEN  Succession — Not,  however,  in  a  Genealogical  line  of  Persons,  but 
of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Apostolic  Doctrine,  etc. — Irenasus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian,  Gre- 
gory Nazian.,  Ambrose,  etc.,  on. — II.  Catholicity. — Preliminaries. — Novatians — 
Waddington  on. — Donatists — Waddington  on. — Pauliceans — Gibbon  on. —  Waldeiisex. 
— Reinerius  Sacchoon. — Inference. — III.  Unity. — The  Harmony  in  Doctrine,  Polity, 
etc.,  of  Anti-Prelatists,  contrasted  with  the  discordant  systems  of  Prelacy. — 
IV.  Sanctity. — See  Standards  of  all  Evangelical  Churches. — V.  Discipline. — See 
Standards  of  all  Evangelical  Churches. 

We  are,  then,  in  conclusion,  brought  at  length  to  the  all-impor- 
tant inquiry  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  this  chapter,  namely : 
do  the  marks  or  notes  of  that  "Holy  Catholic  Church"  in  which 
we  all  profess  our  "  belief," — Apostolicity,  Catholicity,  Unity,  Sanc- 
tity, and  Disciphne, — in  their  application  to  the  claims  of  the 
Greek,  the  Roman,  and  the  prelatical  Anglican  and  American 
portions  of  Christendom,  prove  that  they,  either  sej)arately  or  to- 
gether, constitute  that  Church  ? 

As  we  have  seen  :  Romanists  and  Churchmen,  generally  holding 
that  the  promises  of  the  gospel  are  made  to  the  visible  Church,  and 
that  the  visible  Church  is  a  united  corporate   body,  affirm  that 

*  Ecclesiastical  Contributions,  etc.,  pp.  359,  360. 


4So 

their  church  is  that  body.  And  yet  each  claims  to  be,  par  excel- 
lence, "the  Church,  independently  of  the  other!  In  other 
words,  each,  with  hearty  good- will,  excommunicates  the  other  as 
heretical  and  schismatical !  How,  then,  is  it  attempted  to  dis- 
pose of  this  dilemma  ?  "  The  difficulty,  it  seems,  is  fully  met,"  at 
least,  in  the  estimation  of  these  redoubtable  champions  of  Catho- 
licity, '*  by  providing  for  an  '  interruption  of  urdty^  "  For  though 
"  the  external  communion  of  the  Catholic  Church"  is  essential  to 
its  being,  and  unity  with  each  other  is  a  "note"  of  all  its  true 
members,  yet  this  unity  may  "  be  interrupted."  Yes.  Catholic 
Unity  "  interrupted" — the  Church  of  Christ,  rent  asunder  by  the 
direst  heresies,  the  most  revolting  moral  corruption,  the  most 
deeply-seated  enmities,  followed  by  the  heaviest  anathemas  each 
against  the  other,  and  yet  that  Church,  "  one  "  ! 

Where  tlien,  it  will  be  demanded,  are  we  to  look  for  "  the  Holy 
Catholic  Church  ?"  Prelatists  of  all  grades  and  sects,  with  an  air 
of  the  most  triumphant  self-complacency  and  confidence,  demand, 
— '  Where  was  your  Peotestant  Church  before  the  time  of  Luther  f 
Where  was  the  true  Church,  prior  to  the  period  of  the  Greek 
and  Eoman  schism  ?' 

Now,  to  all  such  and  similar  interrogatories,  it  might  be  suffi- 
cient to  return  the  "  retort  courteous,''''  and  demand,— Where  waa 
Prelatical  Episcopacy  before  the  substitution  of  the  name  bishop 
(a  title  which,  on  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament,  and  the 
testimony  of  the  "  early  fathers,"  we  have  shown  to  have  been 
used  interchangeably  with  that  of  presbyter,  to  denote  one  and  the 
same  person  and  office)  for  that  of  ajyostle,  an  innovation  unknown 
to  the  earlier  and  purest  ^05^apostolic  age?  Where  was  pre- 
latical Catholicity  prior  to  the  alliance  of  the  Church  with  the  State 
under  Constantine  ?  Where  was  the  first  pope  before  a.d.  533,  or 
606  ?  And,  finall}^,  where  was  Protestant  prelacy  anterior  to  the 
time  of  Henry  Yl'lL,  or,  if  it  be  preferred,  of  Edward  VI.  ? 

But  not  to  fight,  as  those  who  beat  the  air,  on  the  points  in- 
volved in  these  interrogatories  pro  and  con,  we  shall  proceed  at 
once  to  assume  and  defend  the  following,  as  constituting  the 
true  scriptural  idea  of  "  the  Church  of  God,"  "  ffoly''  and  "  Catholic:' 

"The  Holy  Catholic  Church"  is  constituted  of  "them  that  are 
sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,  with  all  that  in  every 
place  call  on  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."' 

The  "  Eock"  on  which  it  rests,  and  against  which  "  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail,"  is  that  confession  of  Christ  as  "  the  chief 
corner-stone,"  made  by  "  the  twelve  apostles  of  the  Lamb,"  in 
conjunction  with  the  "prophets."" 

Its  visible  bond  of  union  is,  "steadfast  continuance  in  the  apos- 
tles's  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread,  and  in 
prayers."' 

(1)  1  Cor.  1  :  2.  (2)  Compare  Matt.  16  :  13-18  ;  Eph.  2  :  20 ;  with  Isa.  28  :  16  ;  1  Pet.  a  :  0. 
(3)  Acts  2  :  41,  42. 


456 

Briefly,  then,  the  true  Church  of  God,  though  visible,  is  made 
up  of  such  congregations  of  Christians  throughout  all  nations  and 
in  every  place,  as  have  received  and  retain  purity  of  doctrine  and 
holiness  of  life  ;  while  the  false  Church  is  composed  of  all  who  are 
irreguhir  in  their  lives,  and  who  are  promoters  of  "error,  heresy 
and  schism." 

In  correspondence  with  this  representation,  holy  Scripture  de- 
clares, "  that  all  are  not  Israel  who  are  of  Israel.'"  "  Circumcision 
availeth  nothing,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new  creature."'"  The 
only  index  to  our  knowledge  of  the  existence  and  strength  of  the 
true  Catholic,  is,  external  conformity  to  and  with  a  professed  pos- 
session of  the  internal  grace.  "  By  their  friiits  ye  shall  Jc7iow 
them."'  Still,  man  can  only  "judge  according  to  the  outward  ap- 
pearance."* "  We  cannot  fathom  the  depths  of  the  human  heart, 
nor  are  our  decisions  in  relation  to  external  developments  infallible. 
The  garb  of  hypocrisy  may  long  cover  a  corrupt  heart,  and  our 
most  honest  judgments  may  be  prejudiced."  There  ever  have 
been  and  still  are  those  in  the  Church  who  "  have  the  form  of 
godliness,"' and  make  "a  fair  show  openly  in  the  flesh."'  But 
towards  "  all  those  who  attach  themselves  to  a  Christian  Church, 
whose  profession  of  faith  and  course  of  life  harmonize  with  the 
great  moral  precepts  of  the  Gospel,  we  are  bound  by  the  laws  of 
Christian  charity  to  presume  they  are  genuine  Christians."  It  is 
in  this  asptect  of  the  embodiment,  with  the  true  Israel  of  God  as 
known  to  Him  alone,  of  the  self-deceived  and  the  deceivers  of 
others,  and  whose  external  conformity  places  beyond  the  reach  of 
discipline,  that  we  are  to  apply  the  two  parables  of  the  net  cast 
into  the  sea,''  and  of  the  wheat  and  the  tares. °  The  Church  is  to 
*'  let  both  grow  together  until  the  harvest." 

But  of  those  of  the  false  Church,  w^hose  viciousness  of  life,  and 
the  prornoters  of  "  error,  heresy,  and  schism,"  or,  to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  Mr.  Palmer,  "manifest  sinners,"  the  command  of  holy 
Scripture  is,  '■'■from  such  withdraw  thyself."'  In  opposition  to 
the  canon  of  Mr.  Palmer,  that  "  visible  sanctity  of  life  is  not  re- 
quisite for  admission  to  the  Church  of  Christ  ;"*  holy  Scripture 
teaches,  tliat  just  in  proportion  as  the  absence  of  that  "  visible 
sanctity"  is  discovered,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  "that  are  sanctified  in 
Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints,  with  all  that  in  every  place  call 
on  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  either  to  "  put  away"  from 
them  such  "wicked  persons,"'" — "manifest  sinners,"— or  if,  per- 
chance, apostasy  from  the  faith  and  corruption  in  practice  pervade 
the  aggregate  body,  then,  and  in  such  case,  to  "  come  out  of  her."" 

It  was  on  this  great  scriptural  principle  of  true  Church  Cathol- 
icity, that  the  Reformation  on  the  Continent  of  Europe  was  con- 
ducted.    "Luther,"  for  example,  "denied  that  the  Romish  Church 

(1)  ];om.  !)  :  (i.  (2)  Gal.  0  :  15.  (3)  Matt.  7  :  in.  (4)  Jolin  7  :  24.  (:,)  2  Tim.  3  :  5.  (6)  Gal.  6  :  12. 
(7)  Matt.  13:47.  (6)  Matt.  13  :  25-29.  (9)  2  Tliess.  3  :  6;  1  Tim.  6:5.  (10)  1  Cor.  5:13 
(H)  Rev.  18  :  4. 

*  Treatise  on  the  Church,  etc.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  139,  141,  144. 


.f 


457 


was  the  true  Churcli  of  Christ,  The  Eomish  doctors  then  de- 
manded, Where  was  the  true  Church  before  the  Reformation  f  To 
this  he  answered,  that  it  was  invisible.  By  this  he  meant  that  the 
true  Church,  during  the  reign  of  superstition  and  corruption 
which  he  was  laboring  to  reform,  had  been  confined  to  those  Chris- 
tians who  had  "  worshiped  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth,"  but  had 
been  under  the  necessity,  from  the  pressure  of  circumstances,  of 
seeking  retirement,  as  in  the  days  of  EHjah,  amidst  the  general 
prevalence  of  corruption,  there  were  "seven  thousand"  true  ser- 
vants of  God  who  were  not  even  known  to  the  prophet." 

Nor  is  this  view  of  what  constitutes  the  true  Church  peculiar  to 
Luther  and  the  Continental  Reformers.  The  XlXth  Article  of 
the  Church  of  England  stands  thus:— "The  visible  Church  of 
Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which  the  pure  word 
of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  be  duly  administered  in 
all  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same."  Now,  what- 
ever may  be  urged  by  prelatists  in  regard  to  the  "all  things"  in- 
dispensable to  a  due  administration  of  the  sacraments,  etc.,  the 
above  article  in  Latin,  compiled  and  published  simultaneously 
with  the  English  by  the  same  authority,  has  it,  " '  Cwtus  creden- 
tium^  a  congregation  of  believers,  plainly  showing  that  by  faith- 
ful men  the  compilers  meant  men  endued  with  living  faith."*  So 
Cranmer.  "  This  holy  Church  is  so  unknown  to  the  world  that 
no  man  can  discern  it,  but  God  alone,  who  only  searcheth  the 
hearts  of  all  men,  and  knoweth  his  true  children  from  others  that 
be  but  bastards,  etc.  For  if  the  Church  make  any  new  articles  of 
faith,  besides  the  Scripture,  or  contrary  to  the  Scripture,  or  direct 
not  the  form  of  life  according  to  the  same,  then  it  is  not  the  pillar 
of  truth,  nor  the  Church  of  Christ,  but  the  synagogue  of  Satan, 
and  the  temple  of  Antichrist,  which  both  erreth  itself,  and  bringeth 
into  error  as  many  as  do  follow  it."  And  he  condemns  the 
"  Papists"  for  their  "  arrogant  boldness,"  in  "  that  they  are  bold 
to  affirm  no  Church  to  be  the  true  Church  of  God,  but  that  which 
standeth  by  ordinary  succession  of  bishops,  in  such  pomp  and 
glorious  sort  as  now  is  seen."f  So  the  judicious  Hooker.  "  That 
Church  of  Christ,  wliich  we  properly  term  his  body  mystical, 
can  be  but  one  /  neither  can  that  one  be  sensibly  discerned  by  any 
man,  inasmuch  as  the  parts  thereof  are  some  in  heaven  already 
with  Christ,  and  the  rest  that  are  on  earth  (albeit  their  natural  per- 
sons be  visible),  we  do  not  discern  under  this  property  whereby 
they  are  truly  and  infallibly  of  that  body.  Only  our  minds,  by 
intellectual  conceit  are  able  to  apprehend  that  such  a  body  there 
is,  a  body  collective^  because  it  containeth  a  large  multitude  ;  a 

*  Sermon  on  the  Church,  by  Wesley.  Works,  Vol.  II.,  p.  157,  (as  quoted  in  Method- 
ist Quarterly  Review,  April,  1S-J4,  p.  '209.) 

t  See  Cranmer's  Works,  Oxford  edition.  Vol.  HI.,  pp.  18,  19,  20  ;  and  Vol.  IV.,  pp. 
154,  155.      (Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  pp.  213,  214.) 


458 

body  mystical^  because  the  mystery  of  their  conj  unction  is  removed 
altogether  from  sense,"  etc.* 

We  might  quote  to  the  same  effect  from  Bishops  Sanderson  and 
Cosin,  and  from  the  learned  Dr.  Jackson,  whom  Dr.  Pusey  com- 
mends as  "one  of  the  best  and  greatest  minds  the  Church  has 
ever  produced. "f  But  passing  these,  we  shall  simply  add,  on  this 
subject,  the  following,  contained  in  a  recent  "  Statement  of  the 
Distinctive  Principles  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Society  for  the 
Promotion  of  Evangelical  Knovvledgo."  Speaking  of  "  the  Church," 
the  Society  says  :  it  holds  that  the  Church  is  "  the  blessed  company 
of  all  faithful  people,"  or  of  all  true  believers  in  Jesus,  abiding  in 
communion  with  Christ  by  a  living  faith.  Of  all,  and  ooily  sueh^ 
does  the  Church,  as  "  the  body  of  Christ,"  consist.  This  Church 
is  made  visible  to  man  under  the  form  .of  "  sacraments  duly  ad- 
ministered," etc.  "  This  we  hold,  in  distinction  from  those  who 
teach  that  the  Church,  as  "  the  body  of  Christ,"  is  composed  of 
all  professing  Christians,  Avho  are  united  together  under  a  particu- 
lar external  ministry,  to  which  exclusively  is  committed  and  con- 
fined the  power  of  making  and  ministering  the  sacraments,"  etc. 
And,  after  quoting  Drs.  Barrow  and  Jackson  in  support  of  the 
above,  the  Society  adds : — "  Indeed,  it  would  be  necessary  to  re- 
write the  whole  Bible,  as  well  as  the  most  important  parts  of  En- 
glish ecclesiastical  literature,  before  that  restricted  view  of  the 
Church  could  be  maintained,  which  limits  this  body  of  Christ  to 
those  who  hold  communion  with  one  form  only  of  an  external 
ministry.":]: 

This  same  view  of  what  constitutes  the  true  Church  of  Christ, 
in  one  form  or  another,  has  been  advocated  by  several  of  the  most 
distinguished  members  of  said  "  Society" — Bishops  Meade,  Mc- 
Ilvaine,  Lee,  Burgess,  etc. ;  and  Drs.  Stone,  Tyng,  Bedell,  etc.,  etc. 

We  come  then  to  ask  with  all  deference : — Will  the  said  "  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Society  for  the  Promotion  of  Evangelical  Knowl- 
edge" (as  the  organ  of  the  doctrinal  views  of  the  Low  Church 
portion  of  their  communion),  in  the  light  of  their  Teimdiation  of 
that  view  of  the  Church  "  which  limits  it  to  those  who  hold  com- 
munion with  one  fonn  only  of  an  external  ministry,"  (which  sen- 
timent we  understand  to  be  borrowed  from  that  of  Cranmer.)  tho.t 
the  true  Church  does  not  stand  "Jy  ordinary  succession  of  bish- 
ops in  such  pomp  and  glorious  sort  as  now  is  seen"  ?  Will  that  So- 
ciety allow  us  to  consider  them  as  admitting  the  validity  of  other 
forms  of  an  external  ministry  in  that  Church  which  they  contend 
is  composed  of  "  the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful  ppjople"  ? 
If  not^  then  we  ask :  In  what  consists  the  difference  between 
THEIR  "  exclusiveness^''^  in  its  bearings  on  other  forms  of  ministry ; 
for  example,  Presbyterian^  Methodist^  etc.,  and  that  of  their  High 

♦  Hookers  Eccles.  Pol.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  2S.5,  2SG,  Oxford  edition. 

t  See  Two  Treatises  on  the  Church.     Hooker.     Philadelphia:  1844. 

t  See  Protestant  Cliurchman^  Septennber  21,  1S50. 


459 

Chiircli.  and  Tractorian  brethren,  which  they  so  zealously  con- 
demn ?  If  they  do  intend  to  be  understood  as  admitting  the  va- 
lidity of  other  forms  of  ministry  equally  with  their  own^  then  we 
ask, 

1.  How  is  that  admission  to  be  reconciled  with  the  continued 
advocacy,  by  their  own  Low  Chukch  party,  of  the  necessity  of 
ordination  by  the  laj'ing  on  of  hands  as  involving  the  gift  of  "  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  through  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  bishops  from 
Peter,   Paul,  John,  James,   etc.,  in  order  to  the  jpe'r2?etuity  of  a 

VALID  MINISTRY  ? 

2.  How  will  said  "  Society"  reconcile  the  above  admission  with 
the  invidious  reflections,  imperious  tone,  and  spirit  of  exclusive- 
ness  and  denunciation  against  other  churches  and  forms  of  minis- 
try, which  mark  the  columns  of  their  numerous  publications? 
Why,  from  the  pages  of  their  principal  organ — the  "  Protestant 
Churchman"  alone — might  be  culled  "  muck  and  mire,"  thus  con- 
descendingly thrown  at  those  y^rj  neighbors  whom  they  admit 
to  belong  to  the  same  "  Catholic"  "  household  of  faith"  with  them- 
selves, sufficient  to  fill  a  volume  ! 

3.  How  is  this  admission  by  said  "  Society"  to  be  reconciled 
with  their  refusal  to  recognize  other  forms  of  an  external  ministry 
as  valid,  hy  closing  their  jptdjnts  against  them?     Is  not  this  schis- 

» MATiCAL  ?     Finally, 

4.  Will  said  "  Society,"  organized  "for  the  Promotion  of  Evan- 
gelical Knowledge,"  within  the  communion  of  "the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,"  prepare  and  publish,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Christian  world,  a  work  in  which  it  shall  be  plainly  shown, 
whether,  in  the  "  external  ministry"  of  the  Church,  there  is  any 
other  via  media  between  the  substratum  of  prelacy — ^'■JSfulla  eccle- 
sia  sine  ejjiscopo — without  a  bishop  there  is  no  Church  ;"  and  its' 
opposite — "  Ecclesia,  sine  episco2:)o — a  Church  without  a  bishop," 
than  that  form  denominated  PEESBYTERIAN  ?  And  if  so,  to 
point  out  in  what  said  form  consists  ? 

Until  this  be  done — as  it  has  been  the  entire  design  of  this  Trea- 
tise, in  its  three  parts,  to  demonstrate — it  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to 
occupy  any  otlier  ground  in  the  defense  of  the  prelatical  theor}-,  than 
that  contained  in  the  motto^  "  No  Bishop,  no  Church."  This  theo- 
ry, depending,  as  it  does,  on  an  xiribroken  aposlol/ical  succession  for 
its  support,  constitutes  the  bulwark  of  prelatical  catholicity.  Be- 
tween it,  and  the  theory  of  the  true  catholicity  of  the  Church  as 
advocated  by  us,  and  which  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  only 
Scriptural  them^y  \>y  Cranmer,  the  judicious  Hooker,  Jackson, 
Bishops  Sanderson,  Casin,  Meade,  Mcllvaine,  Lee,  Burgess,  and 
others,  and  by  "  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Society  for  the  Promo- 
tion of  Evangelical  Knowledge,"  as  shown  above,  the  distimce  is 
wide  as  the  poles.  There  is  no  aflinity  between  them.  They  are 
totally,  and  must  remain  forever,  irreconcilable,    Prelatical  catho- 


460 

licity  is  human  !  Originating,  as  we  have  seen,  at  an  earl}'^  period 
of  the  ^>c>.>?^ apostolic  age,  in  an  innovation  upon  the  scripturally 
appointed  ordinary  and  standing  orders  of  presbyter-bishops  and 
deacons,  by  the  erection,  in  its  place,  of  an  episcopacy  on  the 
ground  of  expediency  ',  the  door  thus  opened  to  ecclesiastical 
aspirants,  that  ground  of  expediency  was  soon  exchanged  for  the 
higher,  because  more  dignified  claim,  of  EpiscorACY  by  divine 
right.  Thenceforward,  "  by  little  and  little,"  its  assumptions  of 
power  continued  to  increase,  until  it  attained  to  its  fall  iiiaturity, 
in  the  erection  of  the  Popedom.  And  in  its  nature  and  ten- 
dency, it  is  ever  the  same.  Modify  or  dilute  it — talk,  write, 
preach,  and  wrangle  about  it  as  you  may,  its  fermentation  in  the 
lump,  wherever,  and  under  what  circumstances  soever  found,  is  but 
the  result  of  the  ecclesiastico-chemical  process  of  cause  and  effect^ 
the  which  remarks,  taken  in  connection  with  what  immediately 
precedes,  we  design  as  preliminary  to  what  we  have  to  offer,  by 
way  of  an  application  of  the  five  marks  or  notes,  as  above, 

To  our  theory  regarding  the  true  Church,  which  we  claim,  in 
its  origin,  to  be,  divine. 

I,  First,  then,— Apostolicity. 

Yes,  apostolicity,  and  that  in  the  sense  of  an  uninterrupted  suc- 
cession from  the  New  Testament  times  down  to  the  present  day, 
we  claim  to  constitute  a  cardinal  "  note"  of  the  true  Church.  But 
this  uninterrupted  succession,  we  affirm,  consists  not  in  an  un- 
broken transmission  of  the  office  and  functions  apostolical  from 
them  to  others  by  manual  impositions  ;  thereby  making  the  "  esse^^ 
— the  Being  of  the  Church,  etc.,  to  depend  on  a  seminal  or  genea- 
logical succession  of  persons  :  but  in  the  continued  preservation  of 
the  "  truth" — "  the  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints" — in  other 
words,  "  The  apostles's  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  the  breaking 
of  bread  and  in  prayers,"  by  such  "  a  ministry  generally^''''  as,  deriv- 
ing their  appointment  from,  and  according  to,  the  divinely-pre- 
scribed model  apostolic,  have  been  perpetuated  along  with  that 
truth.  In  a  word,  what  we  affirm  is,  that  the  true  apostolical  suc- 
cession depends,  not  on  any  order  of  men,  as  ministers  of  reli- 
gion, but  on  the  preservation  of  "religion,  pure  and  undefiled 
before  God."'  A  religion,  doctrinally,  experimentally,  and  ecclesi- 
astically "  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets," 
and  of  which  "  Jesus  Christ"  is  "  the  chief  corner-stone."  "  Against" 
Q.2je7'sonal  succession.,  "  the  gates  of  hell"  not  only  7nay^  but  as  has 
been  abundantly  demonstrated  in  these  pages,  they  have  "  prevail- 
ed." This,  as  "we  have  shown,  has  been  the  result  of  the  trial 
of  mere  creaturehood  under  every  dispensation.  It  was  so  with 
"  the  angels  in  heaven,  who  kept  not  their  first  estate."     It  was  so 

(1)  James  1  :  27. 
*  See  Chapter  VII.,  Section  I. 


461 

witli  Adam  in  Eden.  It  was  so  with  the  Cainite  race.  It  was  so 
Avith  Israel  under  the  Theocracy.  And  it  was,  and  is,  and  ever 
will  be,  so,  with  all  who,  lusting  after  "  the  pre-eminence, "and  who 
seek  to  "  magnify  their  office"  beyond  the  divinely-prescribed 
mode],  set  up  the  claim  that  they  "  are  apostles,"  when  they  "  are 
not."  Not  so  with  the  apostolical  succession  of  truth,  of  doctrine,  and 
purity  of  life.  No.  Against  this  succession,  the  machinations  and 
opposition  of  men  and  the  malice  of  devils  have  proved  alike  un- 
availing. We  challenge,  on  this  point,  the  production  of  evidence 
from  "  Holy  Scripture,"  that  it  ever,  under  any  dispensation,  form- 
ed any  part  of  the  divine  plan,  that  the  preservation  of  the  truth 
of  God  in  the  Church  of  God,  was  made  to  "  stand  in  the  wisdom 
of  men,"  linked  together  in  an  unbroken  genealogical  descent,  ra- 
ther than  "  in  the  power  of  God."  '  The  truth  of  God,  or  in  other 
words,  true  religion,  was  preserved  between  the  Fall  and  the  De- 
luge. Not,  however,  by  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  men^ 
divinely  appointed  to  that  end.  And  yet  Scripture  informs  us 
that  there  were  thex  preachers  of  righteousness. "  The  same  holds 
true  of  the  period  from  the  Flood  to  Moses.  And,  though,  in  the 
institution  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  a  personal  succession  was 
appointed,  still  that  priesthood,  as  we  have  shown  at  length,* 
being  exclusively  designed  as  a  type  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ, 
was,  in  itself  temporary,  not  only,  but  was  sometimes  changed  by 
divine  direction,  and,  what  is  more,  was  broken  and  interrupted 
by  men.  Of  this  fact,  so  frequently  adverted  to  by  the  Jewish 
historian  Josephus,  no  scholar  can  be  ignorant.f  And  yet,  as 
though  to  admonish  the  Church  in  all  ages,  that  it  formed  no 
part  of  our  Lord's  design, — as  we  have  proved  it  formed  no  part  of 
the  design  of  his  apostles, — rthat  the  perpetuity  of  his  gospel  in 
its  truth,  and  purit}",  and  power,  should  depend  on  an  unbroken 
succession  of  men,  it  is  notorious  that,  during  his  public  ministry, 
he  did  not  repudiate  the  ministry  of  those  who  performed  the 
functions  of  the  Aaronic  order,  though  not  of  the  succession. 

And  now,  to  vindicate  ourselves  against  the  charge  of  "  novelty^'' 
"  heresy^''  and  the  like,  in  the  advocacy  of  the  sense  which  we 
here  attach  to  this  iirst  "  note,"  Apostolicit}^,  in  its  application  to 
the  true  Church ;  we  shall  proceed  without  further  delay,  to  in- 
troduce to  the  reader's  notice,  the  views  on  this  subject,  of  some  of 
the  "  early  fathers  ;"  and,  first, 

luEx.Bus.  "  We  cannot  know  the  plan  of  salvation  any  otherwise 
than  by  those  persons :{:  through  whom  the  Gospel  has  come  down 
to  us.  This  they  first  preached  by  their  personal  ministry.  After- 
wards they  delivered  the  will  of  God  to  us  in  their  divinely -in- 

(I)  1  Cor.  2  :  6.     (2)  2  Pet.  2:5. 
*  See  Index  on  the  word  Priesthood. 

t  See  Josephus's  Antiq.,  book  27.  c.  6 ;  book  17,  c.  8j  book  18,  c.  1 ;  book  19,  c.  5  ; 
book  19,  c.  7 ;  book  20,  c.  1  ;  book  20,  c.  3. 
X  To  wit,  "  The  twelve  Apostles." 


462 

spired  writings,  the  sacred  Scriptures,  which  were  henceforward  to 
be  the  foundation  and  pillar  of  our  faith." 

We  place  this  passage  fron;i  Irenasus  first  in  order,  because  it 
gives  to  "  the  sacred  Scriptures"  a  supremacy  over  that  of  tradition, 
as  the  standard  of  our  faith,  against  the  pretensions  of  those 
heretics  in  his  day  (and  the  same  is  applicable  to  those  of  our 
times)  who  "accused  the  Scriptures  as  not  having  the  right  doc- 
trine, neither  as  sufficient  authority  ;  that  they  contained  views  so 
diverse  that  they  cannot  be  understood  by  those  who  are  ignorant 
of  tradition."*  "  Such,"  says  he,  "  are  the  persons  against  whom 
we  contend.  Wherefore  we  must  use  every  mode  of  arguing 
against  them,  that,  being  confounded  with  the  discovery  of  their 
errors,  we  may,  if  possible,  convert  them  to  the  truth. "f  This  fa- 
ther then  proceeds  :  "  We  shall  declare  that  which  was  delivered 
from  the  apostles,  which  the  Church  of  Eome  possesses,  the  faith 
they  preached  to  mankind ;  and  which  [faith]  has  come  down  to 
us  through  a  succession  of  bishops,  reaching  to  the  present  time.":}: 
To  the  same  effect  speaks 

TicETULLiAN  :  "  But  if  any  of  the  heretics  dare  to  connect  them- 
selves with  the  apostolic  age  that  they  may  seem  to  be  derived 
fi'om  the  apostles,  as  existing  under  them ;  we  may  say,  '  Let  them 
therefore  declare  the  origin  of  their  churches;  let  them  exhibit 
the  series  of  their  bishops,  as  coming  down  by  a  continued  succes- 
sion from  the  beginning,  as  to  show  their  first  bishop  to  have  had 
some  apostle  or  apostolic  man  as  his  predecessor  or  ordainer,  and 
who  continued  in  the  same  faith  with  the  apostles.  For  this  is  the 
way  in  which  the  apostolical  churches  calculate  the  series  of  their 
bishops."§ 

Yes,  thanks  to  Irenjeus  and  Tertullian.  Allowing  both  the 
above  passages  their  fall  weight,  we  deny  that  either  of  the  above 
fathers  intended  them  to  inculcate  the  prelatical  theory  of  a  suc- 
cession of  persons^  as  absolutely  neckssary  to  the  existence  of 
Christianity  and  its  ordinances.  We  have  shown  from  both 
these  fathers,  that  they  applied  the  titles  presbyter  and  bishop 
promiscuously  to  the  same  person  and  the  same  office.  Admit- 
ting, then,  that  they  affirm  the  existence  of  a  ministry  in  the 
Church  by  a  personal  succession,  the  validity  of  that  succession 
depends  on  their  "  continuance  in  the  same  faith  with  the  apos- 
tles." The  former  is  but  auxiliary  to  the  latter.  That  this  is  the 
sense  in  which  they  are  to  be  understood,  Irengeus,  speaking  of 
this  succession,  says : 

Thus  "  the  preaching  of  the  truth  has  come  down  to  us.  And 
thus  it  is  evident  that  one  and  the  same  living  faith  was  delivered 
to  the  Church  by  the  apostles,  and  has  been  preserved  and  trans- 
mitted down  uncorrupted   to   the  present  time."||      But   again : 

*  Irenjeus,  Lib.  3,  c.  1.  t  lb-,  —  c.  2.  %  lb.,  —  c.  3. 

§  Tertullian,  De  Praescript.,  C.  32. 
II  IreiiEcus,  Lib.  3,  c.  2. 


463 

TEBtuLLiAN  is  still  more  explicit.  "  But  if  tlie  heretics  feign  or 
fabricate  such  a  (personal)  succession,  this  will  not  help  them. 
For  their  doctrine  itself,  compared  with  the  doctrine  of  the  apos- 
tles, will,  by  its  own  diversity  and  contrariety,  pronounce  against 
them.  To  this  form  of  trial  will  appeal  be  made  by  those  churches 
henceforwaid (i^\\y  establishing,  wliicli  [churches],  though  they  have 
neither  any  of  the  ajpostles^  nor  a])Ostolical  men  for  their  founders, 
YET  ALL  AGREEING-  IN  THE  SAME  FAITH,  are  from 
this  consanguinity  of  doctrine  to  be  esteemed  not  the  less  apostoli- 
cal than  the  former,"* 

So  CvPKiAN.  "  Eeferring  to  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Rome,  plead- 
ing tradition  for  what  Cyprian  believed  to  be  a  great  error,  an- 
swers:  What  does  he  mean  by  tradition?  Does  he  mean  the 
authority  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels,  and  of  the  apostles  and  their 
Epistles?  Let  this  tradition  be  sacred.  For,"  says  he,  "custom 
"wrriiouT  TEUTH  IS  only  antiquated  error.  Therefore,  forsaking 
error,  let  us  follow  the  truth,  knowing  that,  as  in  Esdras's  opinion, 
truth  is  victorious ;  so  it  is  written,  '  Truth  remains^  and  pre- 
vails forever^  it  lives  and  reigns  through  endless  ages.  Neither 
is  there  with  truth  any  distinction  or  respect  of  persons,  but  only 
that  which  is  just  it  ratifies ;  neither  is  there  in  the  jurisdiction  of 
truth  any  antiquity  but  the  strength,  and  dominion,  and  the  ma- 
jesty and  power  of  all  generations.  Blessed  be  the  God  of  truth ! 
This  truth  Christ  shows  in  the  Gospel,  saying,  '  I  am  the  truth.' 
Therefore,  if  we  be  in  Christ,  and  Christ  in  us ;  if  we  remain  in 
the  truth,  and  the  truth  abide  in  us,  let  us  hold  those  things 
which  are  of  the  truih."f 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  in  his  oration  in  praise  of  Athanasius, 
speaking  of  his  election  as  bishop  of  Alexandria  to  the  chair  of 
St.  Mark,  says  :  "  If  you  consider  Athanasius  only  as  one  in  the 
number  of  bishops  of  Alexandria,  he  was  the  most  remote  from 
St.  Mark:  but  if  you  regard  his^iV^y,  you  find  him  the  very  next 
to  him."  And  he  adds :  "  This  succession  of  piety  ought  to  be 
esteemed  the  true  successions''^  etc.:}: 

St.  Ambrose.  "They  have  not  the  inheritance,  are  not  the 
successors  of  Peter,  who  have  not  Peter's  faith. "§ 

It  is  needless  to  add  similar  quotations  from  more  modern 
writers.  It  is  quite  sufficient  to  our  purpose,  that  the  "early 
fathers"  so  abundantly  insist  on  the  perpetuity  of  "  the  apostles' s 
doctrine  and  fellowship^''  rather  than  on  a  personal  succession,  as 
the  characteristic  "  note"  of  apostolicity  of  the  true  Church,  "  the 
blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people."  Let  us  apply  to  this 
Church,  the  next  "  note." 

2.   Catholicity.     The  criterion  here  is,  that,  wherever,  and 

*  De  Prapscript.,  c.  32. 

t  Epistle  74,  Ed    Panul.    1589. 

t  Athanasii,  0pp..  Vol.  3,  Appendix.     Ed.  Paris:  1627. 

§  De  Penitentia,  Lib.  1,  c.  6. 


464 

among  whomsoever,  the  true  faith  is  found,  there  we  are  to  look 
for  the  true  Church  Catholic. 

The  question  then  is.  Has  this  true  faith  ever  failed  ?  If  so, 
then  the  Church  has  become  defunct.  Christ's  promise  to  her  has 
failed.     "  The  gates  of  hell  have  prevailed  against  itP 

But,  thank  Heaven,  the  truth  has  not  failed.  "  The  faith  once 
delivered  to  the  saints"  bj  "  the  apostles  and  prophets,"  has  been 
preserved  uncorrupt.  In  a  word,  the  Church  of  God  has  heen 
perpetuated  INDEPENDENTLY  of  prelacy,  whether  of  the 
Greek,  the  Roman,  or  the  Anglican  and  American  so-called  "  Holy 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church." 

That  the  Church,  in  her  doctrines,  morals,  discipline  and  polity, 
as  constituted  by  the  apostles,  though  opposed  by  carnal  Jews  and 
philosophizing  Greeks,  disturbed  by  nominal  professors — as  the 
Galatian  legalists ;  and  by  aspirants  after  apostolical  honors — as 
Biotrephes  and  the  false  apostles  of  the  churches  of  Corinth  and 
Ephesus ;  was,  nevertheless,  preserved  "  uncorrupt"  during  the 
New  Testament  age,  needs  no  proof 

The  interval  between  the  death  of  the  last  apostle — the  venerable 
John,  and  the  time  of  Cornelius  and  Novatian,  a.d.  250,  is  marked, 
for  the  most  part,  by  the  prevalence  in  the  Church,  of  her  primi- 
tive characteristics  in  doctrine  and  in  practice.  We  say,  for  the 
most  part ;  for,  though  we  appropriate  to  this  period  of  the  Church 
the  emphatic  appellation  of  "  the  Golden  Age,^^  yet  it  is  by  no 
means  to  be  inferred  that  the  times  were  not  marked,  yea,  that 
they  were  not  rife,  wath  nominal  disturbers  of  the  peace  of  the 
Church.  Waddington,  a  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge, 
and  Prebendary  of  Ferring,  in  the  cathedral  Church  of  Chichester, 
and  in  the  highest  repute  among  Episcopalians,  in  his  Church  His- 
tory, speaking  of  this  period,  says  : — "  In  the  midst  of  perpetual 
dissent  and  occasional  controversy,  a  steady  and  distinguishable 
line,  both  in  doctrine  and  practice^  was  maintained  by  the  early 
Church,  and  its  efforts  against  those  whom  it  called  heretics, 
were  zealous  and  persevering,  and  for  the  most  part  consistent. 
Its  contests  were  fought  with  the  '  sword  of  the  Spirit,'  with  the 
arms  of  reason  and  eloquence ;  and  as  they  were  always  unat- 
tended by  personal  oppression,  so  were  they  most  effectually  suc- 
cessful— successful,  not  in  establishing  a  nominal  unity,  nor  si- 
lencino'  the  expression  of  private  opinion,  hut  in  maintaining  the. 
puritij  of  the  f'lifh^  in  preserving  the  attachment  of  the  great 
majority  of  the  believers,  and  in  consigning,  either  to  immediate 
disrepute,  or  early  neglect,  all  the  unscriptural  doctrines  which 
were  successively  arrayed  against  it."* 

But  in  A.D.  250,  an  event  transpired  which,  viewed  in  its  then 
present  and  future  results,  marks  an  important  era  in  the  history 
of  the  Church.  Gradually,  and  for  some  time,  a  degeneracy  of 
manners  had  found  its  way  within  her  pale,   and  of  which  the 

*  Waddington's  History  of  the  Church,  p.  79. 


465 

ChuTch  of  Rome  was  the  principal  seat.  To  this  circumstance 
may  be  traced  the  controversy  which  at  this  time  occurred  between 
Cornelius  and  Novatian  ;  which  controversy,  though  it  involved  a 
dispute  about  the  bishopric  of  Eome,  yet  merged,  as  its  principal 
issue,  a  contest  for  the  purity  of  the  cormnunion  and  discipline  of 
the  Church.  It  iiltimated  in  the  separation  of  the  true  Church 
from  the  false.  Novatus  and  his  followers  were  excommunicated 
&om  the  so-called  Church  "  Catholic,"  and  were  known,  as  Euse- 
bius  informs  us,  by  the  title  of  Cathari  or  Puritans.  But,  (what 
in  this  place  is  worthy  of  particular  note,)  even  this  oldest  of  eccle- 
siastical historians,  with  all  his  hostility  to  Novatus  and  those  who 
adhered  to  him,  pretends  to  prefer  no  other  charge  against  them 
"  except  their  '  uncharitableness,  in  refusing  to  commune  with 
those  of  immoral  and  doubtful  character." 

Now,  in  these  ISTovatians — Cathari  or  Puritans — of  the  third  cen- 
tury, we  shall  claim,  merged  the  true  Church.  At  least,  of  such,  we 
think  it  will  be  admitted,  the  true  Church  in  any  and  every  age 
should  be  composed,  if  that  be  true  which  is  said  of  them  by  the 
learned  Waddington,  from  whom  we  take  the  following.  He 
says: 

"  We  may  conclude  with  some  notice  of  the  sect  of  the  Nova- 
tians  who  were  stigmatized  at  the  time  both  as  schismatics  and 
heretics ;  hut  who  may  perhaps  he  more  properly  considered  as 

the   EAKLIEST   BODY   OF   ECCLESIASTICAL   EEFORMEKS.       They    arOSC    at 

Eome  about  the  year  250  A.D.,  and  subsisted  until  the  fifth  cen- 
tury throughout  every  part  of  Christendom.  Novatian,  a  Presby- 
ter of  Eome,  was  a  man  of  great  talents  and  learning,  and  of 
character  so  austere,  that  he  was  unwilling,  under  any  circumstan- 
ces of  contrition,  to  re-admit  those  who  had  been  once  separated 
from  the  communion  of  the  Church.  And  this  severity  he  would 
have  extended  not  only  to  those  who  had  fallen  by  deliberate 
transgression,  but  even  to  such  as  had  made  a  false  compromise  of 
their  faith  under  the  terrors  of  persecution.  He  considered  the 
Christian  Church  as  a  society,  where  virtue  and  innocence  reigned 
universally,  and  refused  any  longer  to  acknowledge  as  members 
of  it,  those  who  had  once  degenerated  into  unrighteousness.  This 
endeavor  to  revive  the  spotless  moral  purity  of  the  faith.,  was 
found  inconsistent  with  the  corruptions  even  of  that  early  age  / 
it  was  regarded  with  suspicion  hy  the  leading  prelates^  as  a  vain 
and  visiona/ry  scheme  /  and  those  rigid  principles  which  had  char- 
acterized and  sanctified  the  Church  in  the  first  century,  were 
abandoned  to  the  profession  of  schismatic  sectaries  in  the  third." 

And  yet,  some  would  have  us  believe,  that  Protestantism.,  as 
antagonistic  to  the  abominations  of  Eome,  was  wholly  unknown 
in  the  Christian  world,  until,  under  Henry  YIII.  and  Edward  VI., 
the  so-called  Independent  Anglican  Church  assumed  the  title  of 
"  the  Protkstant  Church  of  England  as  hy  law  estahlishedJ'' 
We  refer  the  reader,  in  illustration,  to  a  work  entitled,  "  Puritan- 

30 


466 

ism  not  genuine  Protestantism,  etc.,  by  the  Eev.  A.  B.  Chapin," 
published  by  Stanford  and  Swords,  1846.  This,  however  by  the 
way.  We  leave  the  candid  reader  to  decide,  whether  the  above 
description  of  this  "  earliest  body  of  ecclesiastical  reformers"  as 
given  by  Waddington  of  the  Novatians,  does  not  savor  somewhat 
of  the  true  Protestant  principle. 

Well.  "  These  Puritans  or  Reformers  spread  all  over  the  world, 
and  continued  to  oppose  the  pretensions  of  those  who,  from  being 
the  major  party,  claimed  to  be  the  Catholic  or  only  Church. 
They  continued  under  the  name  of  Novatians  for  more  than  two 
centuries  ;  but  finally  merged  in 

The  DoNATiSTS,  who,  indeed,  are  the  same  people  under  another 
name.  These  Donatists  were  a  very  large  and  prosperous  com- 
munity. We  read  of  279  Donatist  bishops  in  one  African  council. 
Of  these  Donatists  the  same  historian  (Waddington)  deposes  : 

"  The  Donatists  have  never  been  charged  with  the  slightest  show 
of  truth  with  any  error  of  doctrine,  or  any  defect  in  church 
government  or  discipline,  or  any  depravity  of  moral  practice; 
they  agreed  in  every  respect  with  their  adversaries,  except  one — 
they  did  not  acknowledge  as  legitimate  the  ministry  of  the  Afri- 
can Church,  but  considered  their  own  body  to  be  the  true,  uncor- 
rupted,  universal  Church." 

Mark  it.  The  Donatists  considered  their  own  body  to  be  the 
true,  uncorrupted,  universal  Church !  "  It  is  quite  clear,"  our 
author  proceeds :  "  It  is  quite  clear,  that  they  pushed  their  schism 
to  very  great  extremities,  even  to  that  of  rejecting  the  communion 
of  all,  who  M'^ere  in  communion  with  the  Church  which  they  called 
FALSE ;  hut  this  was  the  extent  of  their  spiritual  offense,  even  from 
the  assertions  of  their  enemies."* 

The  Donatists,  in  some  two  centuries,  were  amalgamated  with 

The  Pauliceans,  also  called  Puritans.  Regarding  this  body 
of  Christians,  we  might  quote  testimony  in  reference  to  them  simi- 
lar to  that  given  in  behalf  of  their  Protestant  predecessors  from 
Waddington,  Jones,  and  even  Du  Pin.  We  shall  however  content 
ourselves  with  the  following  extract  from  Gibbon,  as  quoted  by 
Jones. 

*'  The  Paulicean  teachers,"  says  Gibbon,  "  were  distinguished 
only  by  their  scriptural  names,  by  the  modest  title  of  their  fellow- 
pilgrims,  by  the  austerity  of  their  lives,  their  zeal  and  knowledge, 
and  the  credit  of  some  extraordinary  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  they  were  incapable  of  desiring,  or  at  least  of  obtaining,  the 
wealth  and  honors  of  the  Catholic  prelacy.  Such  antiohristian 
pride  they  strongly  censured^'' 

"  Until  the  appearance  of  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses, 
these  Protestants  continued  to  oppose  the  Church  of  Nations  in 
the  East  and  in  the  West,  until  at  one  time  they  claimed  the 
title  of  CatholiGr     Of  the  character  of  the  Waldenses,  (sometimes 

*  Waddington's  Church  History,  p.  154. 


467 

called  Leonites,)  take  the  following  from  one  of  their  most  implaca- 
ble enemies, — the  Eomish  Inquisitor,  Reinerius  Saccho.     He  says : 

"  Among  all  the  sects  which  still  are,  or  have  been,  there  is  not 
one  more  pernicious  to  the  Church  than  that  of  the  Leonites ;  and 
that  for  three  reasons.  The  first  is,  because  it  is  the  oldest,  for 
some  say  it  existed  from  the  time  of  Pope  Sylvester,  others /"rom 
the  time  of  the  apostles.  The  second;  because  it  is  more  general, 
for  there  is  scarce  any  country  where  this  sect  is  not.  The  third, 
because  when  all  other  sects  beget  horror  by  their  blasphemies 
against  God,  this  of  the  Leonites  hath  a  greater  show  of  piety,  be- 
cause they  live  justly  before  men,  and  believe  all  things  rightly 
concerning  God,  and  all  the  articles  contained  in  the  creed.  Only 
they  blasphemed  the  Church  of  Rome.''* 

We  refer  the  reader  to  what  we  have  already  offered  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  claim  of  the  Waldensian  Protestants  to  a  remote  origin  ;f 
of  the  barbarous  persecutions  for  conscience  sake  to  which  they 
have  been  subjected  at  the  hands  of  their  Roman  enemies;  of 
their  existence  at  the  time  of,  and  their  agency  under  God  in  pro- 
moting, the  Continental  and  Anglican  Reformations,  and  of  their 
continued  preservation  in  the  mountain-bound  fastnesses  of  Pied- 
moni,  down  to  this  hour. 

We  leave  the  reader  to  infer  from  the  above.  Where  was  the 
true  Church  before  the  time  of  Luther.  In  them  I  behold  the  un- 
interrupted "  Holy  Catholic  Church,"  in  which  I  profess  to  "  be- 
lieve." "  This  people  is  my  people  !  Their  God  is  my  God  !" 
The  next  "  note." 

3.  Unity.  In  the  application  of  this  *'  note"  to  Protestant  anti- 
prelatists,  and  which  their  opponents  are  pleased  to  designate  "  The 
Sects,'''  and  to  represent  as  divided  and  subdivided  into  a  thousand 
discordant  parties,  while  we  would  concede  that  differences  exist 
among  the  various  branches  bearing  that  appellation ;  yet,  we  sub- 
mit, that  they  exist  in  the  form  of  a  division  without  schism.  To 
explain.  The  bonds  of  Protestant  anti-prelatical  union,  hke  all  other 
societies,  are  of  two  kinds,  general  and  special.  The  first  consists  of 
their  acknowledgment  of  tlie  Bible  and  the  Bible  alone,  as  the  only 
sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  the  only  infallible  standard 
of  appeal.  The  second  consists  in  their  unanimous  and  uncom- 
promising renunciation  of  what  they  believe  to  be  the  antichris- 
tianism  of  the  Popedom  and  of  the  Papal  system  in  all  their  diver- 
sified forms.  As  it  regards  their  views  of  what  constitutes  the 
nature,  orders,  and  functions  or  powers  of  the  Christian  ministry, 
while  the  advocates  of  Protestant  prelacy,  so  to  speak,  have 
"written  and  published  enough  to  drain  an  ocean  and  cover  a  con- 
tinent, by  way  of  explaining  the  difference  between  a  Loiv  and  a 
High  Church  and  Fuseyite  bishop,  etc.,  etc.,  we  challenge  the  pro- 
duction of  evidence,  from  a  source  entitled  to  respect,  which  shall 

*  Reinerius  Saccho.     Ed.  Gritzcr.     O.  S.  T.  Cap.  4,  p.  54. 
t  See  Appendix  D. 


468 

exhibit  any  the  leaM  difference  in  the  writers  who  range  under  that 
category,  as  to  what  constitutes  that  ministry  denominated  Pres- 
byterian. So,  of  the  nature,  design,  and  efficacy  of  the  sacra- 
ments^— Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  They  agree  also  in  all 
the  great  essentials  of  Christian  doctrine^  discipline  and  worship. 
And,  in  the  exercise  of  that  charity,  each  toward  the  other,  which 
"beareth  all  things,  believeth  all  things,  hopeth  all  things,  and 
endureth  all  things ;"  though  they  may  differ  in  matters  of  form — 
in  non-essentials — yet,  recognizing  all  who  "hold  the  Head," 
Christ,  as  the  mystical  members  of  His  Body,  the  Church,  and 
each  acknowledging  the  validity  of  the  ordinances  a^  administered 
by  the  other,  and  holding  friendly  and  Christian  correspondence, — 
a  practice  prevalent  among  the  different  Evangelical  denominations 
throughout  our  country, — if  our  Protestant  Episcopal,  Anglican 
and  American  brethren,  with  all  the  existing  divisions  and  schisms 
which  are  now  rending  their  body,  and  the  Eomanists, — differing 
as  they  do  in  four  respects  regarding  the  great  orthodox  point  of 
Catholicism, — who  or  what  constitutes  the  supreme  head  ;  and  in 
another  four  in  regard  to  the  residence  of  infallibility ;  and  in  the 
existence,  in  her  very  bosom,  of  the  following  five  distinct  and 
separate  sects,  viz, :  The  Augustinians,  Dominicans,  Franciscans, 
Jansenists,  and  Jesuits,  etc. ;  if,  we  repeat,  these  will  allow,  we 
shall,  though  with  deference,  claim  this  "  note,"  Unity,  as  the 
rightful  property  of  "  the  blessed  company  of  all  faithful  people" 
of  "  every  name"  and  in  "  every  place." 

4.  Sanctity.  On  the  subject  of  this  "note,"  and  its  applica- 
tion to  the  anti-prelatical  Catholic  Church  of  Christ,  while  it 
might  venture  upon  a  fair  comparison,  at  least,  Avith  others ;  yet, 
God  forbid  that,  in  a  spirit  of  Pharisaic  self-righteousness,  any  of 
its  members  should  say,  "  Stand  by,  I  am  holier  than  thou." 
Rather  it  becomes  the  Church  collectively,  and  her  members  indi- 
vidually, to  unite  in  the  confession,  "  0  Lord^  righteousness  he- 
longeth  unto  thee,  hut  unto  us  confusion  of  faces,  as  it  is  this  day, — 
BECAUSE  we  have  SINNED  AGAINST  THEE."  That  all  Evangclical  de- 
nominations of  Christians,  however,  require  "  Visible  Sanctity"  as 
a  condition  of  admittance  to  the  communion,  etc.,  of  the  Church, 
is  too  notoriously  "  read  and  known  of  all  men  to  require  proof." 
And  so,  that  they  also  require  "  visible  sanctity"  as  the  condition 
of  continuance  in  the  communion  of  the  Church,  is  evident  from 
the  existence  among  them  of  known,  fixed,  and  definite  rules, 

5.  Of  Discipline.  For  proof  of  which  see  their  respectiA^e 
standards,  and  mark  their  practical  exercise  in  the  salutary  ad- 
ministration of  reproof,  admonition,  suspension,  excision,  etc., 
towards  all  within  her  pale,  both  clerical  and  lay,  for  error  in 
doctrine  or  viciousness  of  life. 


469 


APPENDIX  A. 


ANTICHRISTIANISM, 

AS   SCKITTURALLY   VIEWED    IN    THE   ASPECT   OF   ITS    RISE,    FORMS    OF 
DEVELOPMENT,    CHARACTER   AND   RESULTS. 

According  to  my  view — and  I  think,  on  this  subject,  I  have  the  mind  of 
Christ — the  idea,  as  subhraely  grand  as  it  is  appalling,  of  the  for-reaching 
extent  and  true  character  of  Antichristianism,  has  become  almost  extinct  in 
the  Church.  The  current  view  on  this  subject,  having  lost  sight  of  the 
plan  of  God's  moral  government  over  all  orders  of  created  inteUigences 
as  a  whole,  has  broken  it  up  into  detached  fragments,  and  hence  can  dis- 
cern no  feature  of  antichristianism  except  as  they  can  trace  it  in  the  rise 
and  career,  etc.,  of  Romanism  proper.  Not  so  the  teachings  of  Holy 
Writ.  Therein  we  are  taught,  that  that  supremacy,  or  "  pre-eminence" 
which  the  rebel-leader  of  the  angelic  revolt  against  Christ,  as  tlie  divinely- 
consiituted  "  Heir  of  all  things"  (Heb.  1  :  2)  failed  to  establish  in  heaven, 
he  resolved,  upon  the  creation  of  man,  to  secure  to  himself  on  earth,  and 
in  the  Church.  Hence,  speaking  of  Satan  as  "  the  father  of  lies  from  the 
beginning,'"  the  words  of  Christ,  he  "  abode  not  in  the  truth,'"  carry  our 
thoughts  back  to  a  period  anterior  to  the  creation  of  man,  when,  opposinor 
God's  eternal  purpose  of  self-manifestation  through  the  incarnation  of  his 
Son  Jesus,  instead  of  that  of  angels,  it  is  recorded  of  him  that  he  "  fell 
like  lightning  from  heaven."''  And  this  act,  and  that  of  his  angelic  com- 
peers, promoted  by  pride  or  a  love  of  "  the  pre-eminence,"  was  an  act, 
and  the  first  act,  of  schism  and  heresy  against  CnRrsT ;  the  first  to  inter- 
rupt the  pre-existing  harmony  of  God's  moral  universe.  To  Christ,  as 
"  created  by  Him  and  for  Him,"  and  of  whom  the  Eternal  Father  had  de- 
creed, that  "  He,"  as  his  co-eternal  and  co-equal  Son,  should  "  have  the 
pre-eminence,"^  they  were  subordinate,  and  in  and  by  whom  alone  they 
could  stand,  as  have  stood  those  "elect  angels"  "  who  have  kept  their  first 
estate."* 

Now,  this  system  of  Antichristianism,  thus  commenced  in  heaven,  has 
been  continued  on  earth.  Man,  created  by  "  The  Truth,"  and  upon 
whom  was  impressed  his  ineffable  image  and  likeness,  through  the  instiga- 
tion of  "  the  father  of  lies,"  from  a  love  of  "  the  pre-eminence,"  resolved 
to  "  be  as  Gods."  Hence  his  abjuration,  in  Eden,  of  his  allegiance  to  the 
divine  government.  So,  of  the  antichristianism  of  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel,  as  exhibited  in  the  choice  of  an  earthborn  monarchy  in  the  place  of 
the  divinely-appointed  theocracy,  and  which,  ultimating  in  the  exclamation 

(IJ  John  8  :  44.  {'2)  Luke  10  :  13.    (3)  See  Col.  1  :  9-20.     (4)  1  Tim.  6 :  21  ;  and  Jude,  v  6 


470 

against  the  person  oi  the  Incarnate  "  Word,"  "  not  this  king,  but  Caesar," 
finally  nailed  Him  to  the  cross ! 

And  so  the  Antichristianism  of  all  subsequent  time.  Changed,  indeed, 
in /or?«,  but  the  same  in  spirit  and  design — tlie  dethronement  of  Christ  as 
the  divinely-constituted  Heir  of  all  worlds,  and  "  the  Head  over  all  things 
to  the  Church."  As  in  Eden,  and  during  the  patriarchal  antediluvian  and 
postdiluvian  ages,  together  with  the  Mosaic  and  Levitical  dispensations, 
God  could  be  known  and  worshiped  only  as  He  was  pleased  to  reveal  Him- 
self to  the  Church,  through  "  the  promised  seed,"  Christ,  as  "  the  angel 
of  the  Covenant,"  so,  under  and  during  the  Christian  Era.  All  along,  it  is  the 
Deity  in  self-manifestation,  in  the  person  of  Christ.  The  sin  of  the  first 
human  pair  consisted  of  their  schism  and  heresy  against  "  the  voice"  of  the 
Christ  of  God  who  in  Paradise  talked  with  them.  That  of  the  post-patri- 
archal age  against  the  same  Christ  of  God  in  visible  angelic,  manifestations  to 
Abraham,  Lot  and  Jacob.  That  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  against 
the  same,  as  enveloped  in  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire.  That  of  the  rebels, 
Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,  and  their  company,  and  of  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel,  against  the  same,  as  the  Shechinah,  curtained  beneath  the  cherubina 
over  the  mercy-seat  in  "  the  Holy  of  Holies,"  both  in  the  tabernacle  and 
temple,  called  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  "  the  glory."  That  of  the  Jews  after 
the  Nativity,  against  the  same,  as  "  God  manifested  in  the  flesh." 
And,  since  the  Ascension,  against  the  same,  as  revealed  through  "  the 
Spirit,  who  taketh  of  the  things  that  are  Christ's,  and  showeth  them  unto 
us." 

One  difi'erence,  however,  be  it  observed,  marks  the  antichristianism  of 
the  present  compared  with  the  former  dispensations,  the  "sorer  punish- 
ment" of  which  those  shall  "be  counted  worthy,"  who,  under  this  Chris- 
tian age  of  hght,  and  love,  and  truth,  "  tread  under  foot  the  Son  of  God," 
by  "  counting  the  blood  of  the  Covenant  wherewith  he  was  sanctified  an 
unholy  thing,"  thereby  "  doing  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of  grace." 

And  such  are  all  they  who,  in  this  age  of  abounding  wickedness  and 
waxing  coldness,  cling  to  "  the  form  of  godliness,"  by  a  schismatical  and 
heretical  denial  of  its  "  power."  .This  is  a  reaching  forth  of  the  hand  to 
dethrone  the  Christ  of  God  as  the  "  One  mediator  between  God  and  man." 
It  is,  I  contend,  the  same  principle  which  actuated  the  rebel-leader  of 
apostasy  from  God  in  heaven  and  on  earth  ;  a  schismatical  and  heretical 
rejection  of  the  Christ  of  God  (whether  as  shrouded  in  visible  symbolic 
form,  or  as  actually  incarnate  among  men,  or  as  presented  to  the  eye  of  faith 
by  the  Spirit  of  all  grace  through  the  medium  of  the  written  word,  and 
the  ministry  and  ordinances  of  divine  appointment  in  the  Church)  in  His 
prophetical  office  as  the  great  "  Teacher  sent  from  God  ;"  in  His  priestly 
office  as  the  one  only  expiatory  Sacrifice  for  sin,  the  "  Lamb,"  "  set  up  from 
everlasting  or  ever  the  earth  was,"  "  slain  from  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  ;"  and  in  His  regal  authority,  as  the  only  rightful  King  of  nations 
and  of  saints. 

In  the  Christian  Church,  the  system  of  Antichristianism  peculiar  to  the 
present  economy  (as  we  have  shown  in  the  preceding  pages),  was  gradual 
in  its  development.  The  grain  of  mustard  seed,  which  is  the  least  of  all 
seeds,  sown  during  apostolic  times  and  in  the  Church,  passing  through  its 
period  of  gestation  at  the  commencement  of  the  third  century,  laid  ihe 
corner-stone  in  that  foundation  upon  which  was  subsequently  erected  that 
tupendous  system   of  spiritual   despotism,   of  which  the   Papacy  is   the 


471 

grand  embodiment.  The  doctrines,  ecclesiastical  orders,  ordinances  and 
rites  of  New  Testament  Cliristianity,  by  the  arch  devices  of  this  Papal 
headship,  were,  one  and  all,  moulded  into  such  forms  as  its  developments 
rendered  indispensable  to  the  support  of  its  high  claims  of  primacy,  infal- 
libility, and  ecclesiastical  and  political  supremacy.  And,  if  the  evidence  of 
lust  for  "  the  pre-eminence,"  exhibited  in  the  conduct  of  John  the  rival  of 
Gregory,  in  assuming  the  title  of  "universal  bishop"  led  the  latter  to  con- 
temn such  an  assumption  as  a  mark  of  the  "Antichrist"  that  was  to  come, 
wliat  marvel  that  there  were,  of  both  the  Anghcan  and  Continental  Re- 
formers, those  who  denounced  the  popedom  as  the  antichrist,  and  the 
system  of  popery  as  antiohristian  ? 

And  thus  it  was.  The  Pauline  prediction  of  that  apostasy  from  "  the 
faith"  first  "  delivered  to  the  saints"  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  as  the 
precursor  of  the  advent  of  the  Antichrist,  attracted  to  it  the  eye  of  evan- 
gelic faith,  as  to  a  "  light  which  shineth  in  a  dark  place."  "  That  day," 
he  had  said,  "  shall  not  come^  except  there  come  a  falling  away  Jirst,  and 
that  Man  of  sin  be  revealed,  the  So7i  of  perdition;  who  opposeth  and 
exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  or  that  is  worshiped,  so  that 
he  as  God  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  God,  showing  himself  that  he  is  God. 
Remember  ye  not,  that  when  I  was  yet  with  you,  I  told  you  these  things. 
And  now  ye  know  what  withholdeth  that  he  might  be  revealed  in  his  time. 
For  the  mystery  of  iniquity  doth  already  work  ;  only  he  who  now  letteth 
will  let,  until  he  be  taken  out  of  the  way,  and  then  shall  that  wicked  b.e  re- 
vealed,'''"  etc. 

Then,  in  addition  to  this.  The  same  "  more  sure  word  of  prophecy" 
bad  furnished  them  with  unmistakable  indices  of  the  mode  of  development 
of  this  anticliristian  power.  The  apostle,  having  previously  argued,  that  if 
"  Satan  himself,"  the  arch  leader  of  the  revolt  against  Christ  in  heaven, 
and  the  instigator  of  the  apostasy  in  Eden,  in  order  to  the  carrying  out  his 
continued  malice  against  Christ  and  his  followers,  "  is  transformed  into  aa 
angel  of  light,"  that  "  therefore  it  is  no  great  thing  if  his  ministers  also 
be  transformed  as  the  ministers  of  righteousness,"-  "false  apostles,  deceit- 
ful workers,  transforming  themselves  into  the  apostles  of  Christ  ;"  he 
proceeds  to  tell  them  that  their  "  coming  is  after  the  working  of  Satan, 
with  all  power  and  signs  and  lying  wonders,  and  with  all  deceivableness  of 
unrighteousness  in  them  that  perish,  because  they  received  not  the  love  of 
the  truth,  tliat  they  might  be  saved.  And  for  this  cause  God  should 
send  them  strong  delusion,  that  they  should  believe  a  lie,"^  etc. 

Dread  power  !  The  "  let"  or  hindrance  to  his  earlier  advent  being  re- 
moved, how  rapid  his  ascent  to  that  seat  "  in  the  temple  of  God,"  whence 
he  spake  great  words  against  the  Most  High,"  and  has  issued  his  mandates 
for  the  "  wearino;  out  the  saints  of  the  Most  Hiofh,"  chaneintr  "  times  and 
laws,  *  "  forbidding  to  marry,  enjoining  "  abstinence  from  meats,"  and 
flooding  Christendom  with  "  damnable  heresies,"  by  "  teaching  for  doc- 
trines the  commandments  of  men,"  for  now  these  more  than  fifteen  centu- 
ries last  past !     Concerning  it,  we  remark  very  briefly, 

First.  The  advent  of  "  the  Man  of  sin"  had  been  long  preceded  by  the 
decree  of  God  :  "  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  man."''  We  sub- 
mit, therefore,  that  the  great  apostasy  of  Christendom  predicted  by  Paul, 
has  its  exact  analogy  to  that  of  the  antediluvian  world  ;  of  tlie  inhabitants 

(1)  1  Thesa.  2  :  3-8.     (2)  2  Cor.  11  :  13-15.     (3)  a  Thess.  2  :  9-11.     (4)  Dan.  7  :  25.     (5)  Gee.  6  :  3. 


472 

of  the  cities  of  the  plain  ;  and  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth.  As  in  each 
instance  of  the  type,  the  full  development  of  apostasy  from  God  awaited 
the  final  toithdrawal  of  his  Holy  Spirit  ;  so  (this  being  the  relation  in 
which  we  view  them),  the  antitype.  The  same  analogy  also  holds  true  of 
the  respective  remnants  under  each,  whom  God  has  preserved  as  "  a 
seed  to  serve  him."  From  the  very  nature  of  tilings,  we  cannot  discern 
how  pagan  Rome  could  have  constituted  the  "  let"  or  hindrance  to  his 
assumption,  by  "  the  Man  of  sin,"  of  his  "  power,  and  seat,  and  great 
authority"  "  in  the  temple  of  God."  So  far  from  it,  we  deferentially  ask,  in 
what  consists  that  "  infinite  superstition,  the  papacy,"  but  Rome  Pagan 
assimilated  to,  merged  in,  and  baptized  by,  a  Christian  name  ?  "  The 
power,  and  seat,  and  great  authority"  of  the  seven-headed  and  ten-horned 
red  dragon,'  together  with  the  beast  with  the  same  appendages,' 
both  from  the  sea,^  and  the  beast  with  two  horns  like  a  lamb,  from 
the  earth*  were  identical.  For,  while  the  dragon  transferred  his  power, 
and  his  seat,  and  great  authority  to  the  beast  from  the  sea,''  the  beast 
from  the  earth,  with  the  two  lamb-like  horns,  "  spake  as  a  dragon,'* 
"and  exercised  all  the  power  of  the  first  beast  before  him,"  etc."  Yes: 
the  same  animus  pervaded  and  actuated  all,  the  evidence  of  which  may  be 
found  in  the  fact,  that  all  their  separate  powers  are  comprehended  in  the 
ONE  NONDESCRIPT  BEAST  of  the  propliet  Daniel,'  their  diversified  forms 
synchronizing  with,  and  being  designed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  but  as  a  more 
elaborate  exhibit  of,  his  varied  powers  as  Antichrist.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, that  the  sovereign  power  which  controlled  these  transformations, 
having  removed  out  of  the  way  the  "  let"  or  hindrance  thereto,  at  the  ap- 
pointed time,  the  crowns  from  the  head  of  the  seven-headed  and  ten- 
horned  dragon,  or  pagan  imperial  Rome,  were  transferred  to  the  ten 
horns^  of  the  beast  from  the  sea,  whose  seat  of  power  and  authority  was 
still  the  seven-hilled  city  of  Rome ;  and,  consequent  of  the  removal  of  this 
same  "  let"  or  hindrance,  this  power,  etc.,  being  merged  into  those  of  the 
two  lamb-horned  beast  from  the  earth,  constituted  the  ecclesiastico-po- 
litical  power  of  papal  Christian  Rome.  In  other  words,  we  mean  to  say 
that,  the  evidence  of  the  very  early  gestation  of  that  spirit  of  credulity  and 
superstition  in  the  primitive  Church,  which,  keeping  pace  with  the  waxing 
weakness  of  pagan  imperial  Rome,  prepared  her  for  a  wilHng  exchange  of 
the  martyr's  stake  for  courtly  favor,  state  alliance,  and  worldly  prosperity, 
superinduced  that  very  "  falling  away"  of  which  the  presence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  had  been  the  preventive  of  a  more  rapid  maturity.  Hence,  the  long- 
sufi'ering  patience  of  God  having  now  at  length  reached  its  limit,  the  time 
arrives  for  another  development  of  the  fearful  connection  between  willful 
apostasy  and  its  punishment  by  judicial  blindness.  The  nominal  Church, 
"  because  they  received  not  the  love  of  the  truth,  that  they  might  be 
saved,"  "  God,"  who  had  decreed,  "  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive 
with  man,"  "  sent  them  strong  delusion"  (by  taking  "  out  of  the  way,"  or 
withdrawing  the  presence  and  agency  of,  that  Divine  Person  who  alone 
can  guide  and  kee})  us  in  the  truth),  "that  they  should  believe  a  lie,"  by 
"  giving  heed  to  seducing  spirits  and  doctrines  of  devils,"  "  whose  coming 
is  after  the  working  of  Satan,  with  all  power,  and  signs,  and  lying  won- 

(1)  Rev.  12  :  3.  (2)  Ih.  1,3  :  1.  (3)  Compare  Dan.  7  :  2,  3.  7  ;  Rev.  12  :  1  ;  13  :  1,  2.  (4)  Rev. 
13  :  11.  (5)  lb.  12  :  2.  (6)  lb.  13  :  11,  12.  (7)  Dan.  7  :  7,  11,  19-21,  23-25.  (8)  Compare  Rev.  12  :  3, 
With  13  :  1. 


473 

ders,"  etc.  "  Wliat  withholdeth,"  therefore,  being  thus  "  taken  out  of  the 
waj',"  the  advent  of  "  the  Man  of  sin"  was, 

Second,  "  after  the  ivorking  of  Satan,"  "the  father  of  lias,"  "a  liar 
from  tlie  beginning."  By  a  subtle  blending  of  truth  with  lies,  these  se- 
duce the  unwary  into  idolatry.  St.  Paul  says :  that  the  heathen  "  became 
fools,"  when  they  "  changed  the  glory  of  the  uncorruptible  God  into  an 
image  made  like  to  corruptible  man,"^  etc.  And  the  second  commandment 
in  the  Decalogue  enjoins  :  "  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thyself  any  graven 
image,   noi    the  likeness   of   any  thing  that  is  in  heaven  above,    nor  in  ^ 

the  earth  beneath.  Thou  shalt  not  bow  to  them,  nor  serve  them,"*  etc. 
Now,  in  three  different  Romish  Catechisms,  this  second  commandment  is 
expunged,  and  to  make  out  the  tenth,  the  ninth  is  divided  into  two  !  These 
we  shall  place  side  by  side. 

Butler's  Catechism.*  Doyleh  CalechismA 

Q.  Say  the  commandments  of  God.  Q.  Say  the  ten  commandments  of  God. 

A.  1.     I   am   the  Lord  thy  God;  thou  A.  1.      The    same. — But   adds:    Thou 

shalt  have  no  strange  Gods  before  me.  shalt  not  make  to  thyself  neither  an  idol 

or  any  figure  to  adore  it. 

2.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  2.  The  same. 
Lord  thy  God  in  vain. 

9.  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  9.  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's 

wife.  wife.  UT.  < 

10.  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's         10.  Thou    shalt    not  covet   thy  neigh-         f9vf''' 
goods.     Exodus  xx.  bor's  goods. 

The  third  is  an  American  edition  of  "  An  Abridgment  of  Christian 
Doctrine,  in  questions  and  answers,  by  Rev.  Henry  Taberville,  D.D.,  of  the 
English  College  of  Doua}^"  etc. J 

Q.  What  is  the  second  commandment  ? 

A.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord  thy  God  in  vain." 

In  a  previous  edition  of  this  same  catechism,  published  in  Dublin,§  the 
question  is  asked  :  "  How  do  you  prove  it  laivful  to  paint  God  the 
Father  like  an  old  man  V  And  in  a  book  entitled  :  "  A  Net  for  the 
Fishers  of  Men,"  the  following  proposition  and  arguments  occur,  in  support 
of  "  the,  worshiping  of  angels  and  holy  images  bg  the  most  solid  texts  of 
Scrip>ture."  At  page  59,  the  question  is  asked :  "  Why  did  the  great 
precursi^r  of-  Christ,  St.  John  the  Baptist,  toorship  the  latchet  of  our  Sa- 
vior's shoes  ?"  But  the  Baptist  merely  said :  "  There  shall  come  one 
mightier  than  I,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  loose"' — not 
one  word  about  "  worshiping  ;"  nor  was  the  Savior  present  when  the  words 
were  spoken  ;  but  had  he  been  present,  the  Baptist  would  have  worshiped 
THE  Savior,  and  not,  as  a  heathen,  worshiped  his  shoe  latchets.  So  also 
we  are  referred  to  Rev.  22  :  8.  But,  had  John,  after  receiving  the  com- 
mand, "  See  thou  do  it  not,"  attempted  to  worship  the  angel,  who  was  a 

(1)  Rom.  1  :  23.     (2)  Exod.  20.     (3)  Luke  3  :  16.     Illicmish  translation. 

*  The  most  Rev.  James  Butler's  Catechi.sm  for  the  Kingdom  of  Ireland.  Twelfth 
Edition.     R.  Coyne,  Maynooth,  Ireland.     1826. 

t  The  Right  Rev.  James  Doyle's  Catechism.  Revised  for  the  Dmrese  of  Kildare 
and  Lerghlin.     R.  Coyne.     18-27. 

t  Recommended  by  the  Right  Rev.  Bi.shop  Benedict,  of  Boston.  Published  by  John 
Doyle,  12  Libertv  street,  Xew  York.     1833. 

§  R.  Coyne,  Maynooth.     1828.     Page  52. 


474 

mere  creature,  as  in  tlie  case  of  the  Baptist  had  he  worshiped  the  latchets 
of  the  Savior's  slioes,  both  had  been  "  after  the  loorkinrf  of  Satan" — 

Which  we  affirm,  marked  tlie  manner  of  the  introduction  of  Christianity 
among  ihe  Anglo-Enolish  by  Gregory  I.,  and  his  missionary  Augustine. 

Bedo  informs  us  thai,  in  his  letter  to  Mellitus,  wlien  going  into  Britain, 
Gregory  advises  him,  in  imitation  of  the  sacrifices  which  the  Saxons  had 
been  accustomed  to  offer  to  devils,  to  "  kill  cattle  to  tlie  praise  of  God,  in 
their  eating,  ...  to  the  end  that  they  [the  Saxons]  may  morceanily  consent  to 
the  inward  consolations  of  the  grace  of  God."*  And  Augustine  introduces 
hiin.sclf  to  their  king,  Etlielbert,  "  bearing  a  silver  cross  for  a  banner,  and 
the  imar/e  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  painted  on  a  board. "f 

The  setjucl  of  Home's  history  of  imagre  worship  shows,  that  Antichrist's 

"  C0)tli7u/'   was   "   AFTER  THE  WORKING  OF  SaTAN." 

TiuiiD.  "  With  all  power."  We  refer  the  reader  to  tlie  pope's  arro- 
gant and  blasphemous  assumptions  as  the  alleged  representatives  of  Him 
who  "  had  ntjt  where  to  lay  his  head,"  to  pages  220-223,  in  regard  both  to 
their  character  as  supreme  legislators  in  the  Church,  and  lords  of  the  uni- 
vei'se  ;  to  support  which  powers,  the  establishment,  a.d.  1300,  of  the  ju- 
bilee by  Boniface  VIII.  may  be  taken  in  illustration.  On  that  occasion, 
"two  priests  stood,  day  and  night,  with  rakes  in  their  hands,  to  coUect, 
without  counting,  the  heaps  of  gold  and  silver  that  were  poured  on  the 
altar  of  St.  Paul.";};     Tims  they  made  merchandise  of  the  souls  of  men  ! 

FouKTH.  "And  siffns"  {arjueloig),  tokens.  Take,  for  example,  the  kiss 
with  which  Judas  betrayed  Jesus.  Kissing  pervades  every  ceremony  of 
Romanism.  The  pope's  toe  is  kissed,  or,  by  an  act  of  special  clemency,  his 
hand.  And  the  priest  kisses  the  altar  ;  while  the  people  are  taught  to  kiss 
crosses,  images,  relics,  etc. 

Fifth.  "  Lying  wonders,"  or  miracles  to  prove  lies.  Let  it  here  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  the  pope  will  not  canonize  any  saint  until  "  the  con- 
gregation proceeds  to  examine  the  virtues  and  miracles  in  detail. "§  It  is  on 
miracles  that  she  rests  her  claims  to  be  the  only  true  Church.  Bede 
claims  "  the  signs  of  an  apostle"  in  behalf  of  Augustine,  and  records  his 
epitaph  :  Who,  it  says,  "  by  God's  assistance,  supported  xoith  miracles,  re- 
duced King  Eihelbert  and  his  nation  from  the  worship  of  idols  to  the  faith 
of  Christ. "II  Pass  from  this  to  the  Breviary  (or  book  of  devotion  for  the 
Roman  cleigy),  as  restored  by  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  It 
abounds  wiih  alleged  miracles  of  the  saints,  e.  g.  :  the  conveying  of  St. 
Raymond  from  Majorca  to  Barcelona,  over  160  miles,  in  six  hours,  in  no 
othei'  vessel  than  his  cloak  spread  upon  the  waters.^  A  prayer  to  be  de- 
hveied  from  the  buining  flames  of  hell,  througli  the  merits  of  the  count- 
less miracles  of  the  blessed  Pontiff  Nicholas.**  St.  Francis  Xavier  is 
alleged  to  have  been  endowed  with  the  miraculous  gift  of  tongues,  to  have 
restored  sight  to  the  blind,  healed  the  sick,  and  even  raised  the  dead  Iff 
St.  Scholastica  detained  the  venerable  Father  Benedict,  her  brother,  one 
whole  night  from  his  monastic  cell,  by  creating,  through  her  tears  and  the 
nod  of  her  head,  a   teriific    thunder   storm.JJ     St.    Peter  of  Alcantara, 

*  Bede'.s  Ecclesiastical  History,  Book  1,  c.  30. 

t  Tb ,  opening  of  c.  '2^i. 

t  Muralori's  Collection,  quoted  by  Gibbon. 

4   Introduction  to  Lives  of  Saints  Canonized.     May  2G   1839.  p.  10 

I!    Bede,   B.  2.  c.  3. 

i  Breviary,  Jan.  23.  =**  lb.,  Dec.  G  tt  lb.,  Ben.  .!.  \\  lb.,  Feb.  10. 


475 

having  planted  his  staff  in  the  ground,  it  at  once  sprung  into  a  sappy 
fig-tree,  with  which  he  fed  the  hungry.*  In  the  book  of  the  Lives  of  the 
Saints,  it  is  recorded  that  he  produced  peaches  from  the  boughs  of  a  chest- 
nut tree  when  the  season  had  passed  foi  them,  to  satisfy  the  cravings  of 
the  wife  of  St.  Joseph  of  the  Cross, f  besides  many  similar  miracles.^  St. 
Aiphonsus  Ligori  is  alleged  to  be  omnipresent,  preaching  in  one  place  and 
hearing  confessions  in  another  at  the  same  instant.J  The  same  of  St. 
Francis  di  Girolamo,  who  also  cured  a  woman  of  convulsions  by  hor  kiss- 
ing the  relic  of  St.  Cyr.§  St.  Pacificus  miraculoushj  supplied  both  mortar 
and  other  materials  with  which  to  finish  the  new  rooms  added  to  the 
convent.! 

But  enough  of  this  disgusting  picture.  Even  the  Romish  controvertist, 
Milner,  says,  "  I  admit  that  a  vast  number  of  incredible  nnA  false  miracles, 
as  well  as  other  fables,  have  been  forged  by  some,  and  believed  by  other 
Catholics,  in  every  age  of  the  Church."^ 

Sixth.  Deceivableness  of  "unrighteousness.  No.  This  "  falling  away" 
was  not  to  be  brought  about  by  an  opert-  denial  o^  God  and  of  religion. 
The  unwary,  who  were  but  little  familiar  with  "  the  depths  of  Satan," 
were  to  be  seduced  by  a  concealment  of  the  teeth  of  iron  and  nails  of 
brass,  etc.,  of  the  beast  "  dreadful,  and  terrible,  and  stronj;  exceedinfflv,"' 
under  the  covert  of  "  a  form  of  godliness."     And  so  he  was 

Seve.nth.  To  "  sit  in  the  temple  of  God" — the  Church,  Christian — 
"  whose  temple  are  ye,"  built  up  a  "  spiritual  house,"  a  "  holy  temple."* 
Paul  had  predicted,  "  For  I  know  this,  that  after  my  departing,  shall 
grievous  wolves  enter  in  among  you,  not  sparing  the  flock.  Also  of  youb 
OWN  SELVES  shall  men  arise,  speaking  perverse  things,  to  draw  away  dis- 
ciples after  them."'  He  "  sitteth"  in  a  quiet,  easy  posture  in  the  chair  of 
St.  Peter,  a  posture  in  which  the  apostate  tyrant  glories.  Thence  he 
issues  his  "  ex  cathedra"  mandates,  wliich  have  hurled  kings  from  their 
thrones,  shook  kingdoms,  raised  crusades,  kindled  martyr-fires,  etc.  And 
in  which  temple, 

Eighth.  He  "  opjjoseth  and  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is  called  God., 
or  that  is  worshiped.'"*  Now,  of  those  "  that  are  called  gods,"  take  the 
three  following  orders,  viz. : 

1.  Bishops  and  priests.  The  Tridentine  Catechism  says  of  these, 
"  Justly,  therefore,  are  they  called  not  only  angels  but  gods,  holding  as 
they  do  the  place,  and  power,  and  authority  of  God  on  earth."**  But, 
says  the  same  catechism,  "  siqyerior  to  all  these  (seven  orders  of  clergy,  see 
p.  199)  is  the  sovereign  pontiff.  .  .  As  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and 
the  true  and  legitimate  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ."\\ 

2.  Princes  and  Judges  are  "  called  gods."  Exod.  12:12;  22  :  9  ;  Ps. 
82.  See  John  10  :  34.  Of  the  tiiles  under  which  they  claim  supremacy 
over  these,  see  p.  221. 

3.  ']i\\Q  consecrated  host  is  "called  God,"  and  receives  the  worship  due 
unto  God.  In  the  Roman  Prayer- Book  J];  there  are  the  following  direc- 
tions :  "  When  the  priest  gives  the  benediction   with  the  blessed  sacrament, 

(1)  Dan.  7  :  7-19.  (i)  1  Cor.  3  :  16,  17  ;  6  :  10  :  2  Cor.  6:16;  1  Tim.  3  :  15  ;  lleb.  3:6;  10:21; 
I  Pet.  2  :  5.      (3)  Acts  20  :  29,  30.     (4)  See  Dan.  II  :  36. 

♦   lb..  Oct.  10. 

t  Lives  of  the  Saints,  p.  44-4.  J  lb.,  p.  26.  §  lb.,  p.  104.  ||  lb.,  p.  190. 

"IT  End  of  Controv.,  Letter  24. 

*♦  Eng.  Trans,  by  Rev.  J.  Donovan.  Rom.  Priest.     De  Orel.  Sac.  pars  2,  c.  7. 

ft  lb.  tt   Garden  of  the  Soul,  Preston  ed.,  1835. 


476 

bow  down  and  profoundly  adore  your  Savior  there  present.  ...  or  you 
may  say  thus  :  I  devoutly  adore  thee,  0  hidden  Deity."  But  the  installa- 
tion of  his  holiness  in  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  exalts  him  above  the  host. 
When  he  is  placed  on  the  altar  of  the  Sixtine  Chapel,  though  it  is  deno- 
minated "  the  altar  of  the  beauty  of  holiness,  the  throne  of  the  victim 
Lamb,  the  mercy-seat  of  the  temple  of  Christianity,"  etc.,  yet  it  is  made 
the  pope's  ^'footstool." 

4.  Nor  tills  only.  But  "as  God,  he  sitteth  in  the  temple  of  Ood,  show- 
ing HIMSELF  TfiAT  HE  IS  GoD."  He  exalteth  himself  above  all  that  is 
called  Ood,  not  only,  but  above  all  that  is  worshiped."  But  of  Christ, 
it  is  wiitton,  "  And  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him."  And  that  on 
the  ground  that  He  is  co-eternal,  co-equal,  co-essential  with  the  Father, 
and  hence.  One  with  Him.  "  I  and  my  Father,"  saith  He,  "  are  one," 
one  in  nature  or  essence  ;  one  in  heart  and  love  ;  one  in  mind  and  will. 
The  self-manifested  Deity  !  in  which  capacity  He  holds  the  relation  of 
MEDrATOR  between  God  and  an  apostate  world,  under  the  three-fold  offices 
of  Prophet^  Priest  and  King. 

It  will  be  well  also  in  this  connection  to  recur  to  that  passage  in  which 
the  name  is  given  of  this  predicted  "  Man  of  sin."  "  Little  children," 
says  St.  John,  "  it  is  the  last  time  :  and  as  ye  have  heard  that  Antichrist 
shall  come,  even  now  are  there  many  antichrists  ;  whereby  we  know  that  it 
is  the  last  time."^ 

Now,  take  in  connection  with  this  passage,  and  as  expository  of  it,  our 
Lord's  prediction  of  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  Church  state,  and  of  the 
appeal ance  of  those  false  Christs  and  false  prophets  who  were  to  precede 
and  indicate  its  approach.*  The  phrase,  "  the  last  time,"  in  the  above  pas- 
sage, pointed  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  as  then  at  hand,  and  of  which 
the  "  many  Antichrists"  in  St.  John's  time  Avas  a  prelude.  That  event  oc- 
curred soon  after  the  penning  of  this  epistle.  The  "  many  Antichrists" 
that  then  were,  however,  though  appearing  in  the  spirit,  yet  were  but 
"  the  types  and  forerunners  of  a  still  more  dreadful  power,  which  should 
be  fully  revealed  in  the  latter  times,  in  a  future  period,  when  that  calamity 
was  past."* 

Bishop  Hurd  gives  the  following  definition  "  of  the  word  Antichrist." 
It  "  stands  for  a  person  or  power  actuated  with  a  spirit  opposite  to  that  of 
Christ."  ...  "It  may  either  signify  one  who  assumes  the  place  and 
OFFICE  of  Christ,  or  one  who  maintains  a  direct  enmity  and  opposition  to 
him."f  It  follows  that,  as  such,  the  assumptions  of  Antichrist  must 
cover  all  tiie  official  prerogatives  which  belong  to  Christ,  as  prophet, 
priest,  and  king.  They  are  verified  in  the  alleged  functions — infallible, 
sacerdotal,  and  'political,  of  the  pontificate  of  Rome.  Then,  too,  the  name 
of  "the  Man  of  sin  ;"  it  cannot  signify  any  one  particular  man,  but  a  hu- 
man power,  actually  exerted  by  a  succession  of  different  men.  As  man  of 
God  evidently  means  not  any  particular  man,  but  is  to  be  understood  of 
all  such  in  every  age  and  among  all  nations ;  so  the  man  of  sin  un- 
doubtedly signifies  not  any  one  man  alone,  but  any  man,  or  number  of  men 
in  all  ages  and  places,  whose  peculiar  station  and  circumstances  shall  be 
found  to  correspond  to  the  prophetic  description  here  given  of  him. 

In  conclusion,  then,  on  this  subject,  we  remark,  that  the   term  "  Avrt" 

(1)  1  John  2  :  18.     (2)  Matt.  24  :  24  ;  Mark  13  :  21. 
*  Bishop  Hiird  on  the  Prophecies,  p.  121.     London.     1839.  f  lb.,  p.  122. 


477 

(anti),  in  composition,  frequently  means  "  against ;"  but  when  joined  to  a 
noun  of  person  or  office  (as  in  the  name  KvTLXQtOTog,  Antichrist),  it  al- 
most invariably  means  "  instead  of"  and  gives  the  substantive  a  vicakfous 
position.  '  O  avr  dXXov  expresses  a  vicar,  generally ;  AvTif3aai/(.Evg 
(Anti-Basileus),  a  vicar-king.  .  .  .  Avdvnarog  (anth-upatos),  a  vicar-con- 
sul. It  is  written  (Matt.  2  :  22),  "  that  Archelaus  did  reign  {Avn  HptjcJov 
Anti-Herodou)  i?i  room  of  Herod."  And  Chrysostom,  in  his  discourse  on 
"  The  Man  of  Sin,"  says  :  "  He  will  cause  himself  to  be  worsiiipkd  (AvtI 
TOV  Qeov,  Anti  tou  Theou)  as  vicar  of  Ood."  AvrixQiorog,  Antichrist, 
then,  beyond  a  hesitant  thought,  means  a  VICAR-CHRIST.  Now,  both 
the  titles,  Vicar  of  God,  and  Vicar  of  Christ,  have  been  assumed  by  the 
popes  of  Rome  !  ("  Confidens  itaque  per  Domini  ac  Dei  nostri  misericor- 
diam,  providamque  ipsius  Dei  in  tcrris  vicarii"  etc.*  "  Christique  Domini 
verus  et  legitimus  vicarius  praesidet."f  Tliese  titles,  worn  by  a  mortal 
man,  seem  enough  to  abound  in  pride  and  blasphemy,  and  should  make 
all  men  suspect  that  the  pope  of  Rome  is  not  truly  "  his  Holiness."  But 
when  it  appears  that  "Vicarius  Christi,"  VICAR  OF  C  HRIST,  is  the 
legitimate  and  veritable  translation  of  the  Church-corrupter's  name, 
Avrt;^pi(Tro^,  Antichrist  ;  and,  when  we  take  into  the  account,  in  this 
connection,  the  fact  that,  on  the  Romish  hypothesis  of  transubstantia- 
TiON  ;  namely,  "  that  in  the  most  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  there  are 
truly,  really,  and  substantially  contained  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  together  with  his  soul  and  divinity,  and  consequently  wfiole 
AND  ENTIRE,  .  .  .  as  soou  as  the  consecration  is  performed  ;"J  and  then 
bear  in  mind  that  the  pope,  when  inaugurated  into  office,  being  placed  on 
the  altar  of  the  Sixtine  Chapel  makes  it  his  footstool,  thereby  exalting 
himself  above  the  consecrated  host  or  "  hidden  Deity"  which  the  people  are 
required  to  "adore  ;"  can  common  sense  refuse  to  say  :  "  Thou,"  O  pope, 
"  art  the  man" — "  of  sin  ?  Can  common  prudence  venture  to  abide  in  the 
Popish  Church  ? 

*  Con.  Trid.,  session  6.     De  Reformation,  c.  1. 
t  Catechism  Council  of  Trent,  part  2,  cap.  7,  L. 

\  Council  of  Trent,  session  13  ciiapter  8,  canons  1   and  4,  Brownley's  edition,  pp.  45, 
46.     New  York.     1842. 


478 


APPENDIX  B. 


On  the    Charge  brought  by  Prelatists  against   Calvin,  that  he  preferred 
Episcopal  ordination,  and  sought  after  it,  but  could  not  obtain  it,  etc. 

[I  shall,  on  this  subject,  content  myself  to  transcribe  in  this  place  the 
following,  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Duffield's  Letters  to  Bishop  McCoskrey. 
Having  refuted  the  charge  preferred  by  prelatists  against  Calvin  and  others, 
that  they  "concede"  that  "the  word  Presbytery,"  in  1  Tim.  4  :  14, 
means  "  the  cleiical  office,"  he  says  : — ] 

Still  more  unfortunate  are  you,  in  your  notice  of  Calvin's  reason  for  not 
receiving  the  apostolic  ministry.  It  is  not  the  first  time,  however,  that  pre- 
laticul  writers  have  found  they  had  better  let  Calvin  alone.  The  insinuation 
you  make,  that  he  preferred  Episcopal  ordination,  meaning  of  course  pre- 
latical,  and  would  have  received  it,  if  he  could  have  procured  it,  is,  indeed, 
obscurely  made.  But  I  certainly  cannot  be  mistaken  in  thinking  you  de- 
signed to  make  it.  If  this  be  not  what  you  meant,  I  must  be  excused  for 
misapprehending  your  language ;  for  I  confess  myself  unable  to  see  what 
else  can  be  your  meaning.  Perhaps  I  should  not  have  been  able  thus  to 
understand  it,  if  I  had  not  recently  read  the  late  controversy  between  Dr. 
Miller,  of  Princeton,  New  Jersey,  and  Bishop  Ives,  of  North  Carolina,  on 
this  subject.  The  latter  gentleman  has  said  that  Calvin  avowed  a  belief  in 
the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  and  had  requested  to  receive  Episcopal 
ordination  from  the  bishops  of  England.  I  refer  you  to  Dr.  Miller's  review 
of,  and  reply  to.  Bishop  Ives's  attempt  to  prove  his  allegations,  published  in 
the  Presbyterian  on  the  5th  and  12th  of  February  last. 

It  seems  the  doctor  was  not  allowed  to  vindicate  Calvin,  through  the 
same  channel,  in  which  he  had  been  aspersed ;  and,  Clierefore,  instead  of 
his  letter  being  published  in  the  "  Lincoln  Republican,"  where  Bishop 
Ives's  had  been,  it  had,  after  several  weeks  delay,  to  be  published  in  Phila- 
delphia. Probably  you  never  saw  the  reply.  Had  you  seen  it,  you  would 
not  have  renewed  an  allegation,  which,  in  the  most  triumphant  manner,  has 
been  refuted  by  Dr.  Miller.  I  have  examined  the  quotations,  as  made  by 
both  gentlemen,  and  find  that  Bishop  Ives  omicted  some  very  important 
qualifications,  and  makes  use  of  Calvin's  concession  on  an  hypothesis 
which  he,  in  common  with  all  opposed  to  popery,  deemed  improbable,  and 
impossible  ever  to  be  realized,  as  proof  of  a  belief  in  the  divine  institution 
of  Episcopacy  I  Calvin  had  said,  after  ridiculing  the  claims  of  an  uninter- 
rupted succession,  "  if  the  Papists  would  exhibit  to  us  such  an  hierarchy, 
as  that  the  bishops  .should  be  so  distinguished  as  not  to  refuse  to  be  subject 
to  Christ ;  to  rely  on  Him  as  their  only  head,  to  cherish  fraternal  union 


479 

among  Lhemsolves,  and  to  be  bound  together  by  no  other  tie  than  his  trutli, 
then  I  should  confess  there  is  no  anathema  of  wliich  they  are  not  worthy, 
■who  should  not  regard  suck  an  hierarchy  with  reverence  and  obedience. 
But  what  likeness  to  such  an  one,  is  borne  by  that  spurious  hierarchy  in 
Avhich  they  boast?"  Be  it  remembered  that  the  word  hierarchy  does'not 
always  apply  to  prelatical  bishops.  He  afterwards  condemns  its  arroirance 
and  tyranny,  and  shows  its  utter  dissimilarity  to  that  which  Christ  nnd  his 
apostles  sanctioned. 

Calvin's  bishops  were  parochial  bishops,  or  pastors  of  single  churches, 
just  such  as  we  Presbyterians,  in  our  form  of  government,  denominate 
bishops.  The  propriety  of  having  a  moderator  in  the  college  of  pastors  or 
presbyters,  he  also  maintained,  just  as  we  have  moderators  of  presbyteries. 
Because  he  deemed  such  Episcopacy  a  divine  institution,  and  consented  if 
Rome  would  produce  a  specimen  of  it,  to  condemn  those  that  would  not 
yield  reverence  and  obedience  to  such  an  hierarchy,  therefore,  lie  believed 
in  the  divine  right  of  prelacy,  or  of  your  "  Episcopal  bishops,"  is  a  non- 
SEQUiTUR  by  no  means  becoming  a  mitered  or  any  other  head.  Yet  Bishop 
Ives  gives  the  extract  from  Calvin,  above  quoted,  in  the  followini--  terms  ; 
"If  they  will  give  us  such  an  hierarchy  in  which  the  bishops  have  sucli  a 
pre-eminence,  as  that  they  do  not  refuse  to  be  subject  to  Christ,  then  I  will 
confess  that  they  are  worthy  of  all  anathemas,  if  any  such  shall  be  found, 
who  will  not  reverence  it,  and  submit  themselves  to  it  with  the  utmost 
obedience." 

The  most  superficial  reader  can  discern  the  difference  between  the 
bishop's  version  of  Calvin's  hypothesis,  and  Calvin's  own  statement  of  it. 
I  give  you  this  as  a  specimen  of  the  accuracy  of  Bishop  Ives,  if  you  have 
made  the  allegations  on  liis  authority,  and  deem  it  unnecessary  to  adduce 
further  examples,  of  which  Dr.  Miller  has  furnished  so  many  and  so  <rlar- 
ing,  that  it  is  by  no  means  strange  the  "  Lincoln  Republican"  declined  to 
publish  them.* 

*  Since  the  above  was  sent  to  press,  the  second  edition  of  your  sermon  has  been 
published,  in  which  I  find  a  note  confirming  my  conjectures,  as  to  the  source  whence 
you  derived  your  information,  and  as  to  the  authority  on  which  you  have  rt'lied,  to 
prove  that  Calvin  was  enamoured  with  prelacy.  You  give  Bishop  Ives's  rel'erences 
exactly — references  which  I  had  not  deemed  it  necessary  to  notice  in  detail,  because 
your  first  edition  contained  no  particular  facts  or  arguments  to  substantiate  the  charge 
you  have  brought  against  Calvin,  and  because  I  had  supposed  it  would  suffice  to  direct 
those  who  felt  interested  in  the  subject  to  the  controversy  between  the  Episcopal  bishop 
of  North  Carolina,  and  the  Presbyterian  doctor  of  Princeton,  New  Jersey.  A  more 
particular  notice  is,  however,  now  required  in  consequence  of  the  note  you  have  intro- 
duced on  the  ■21st  and  '2"2d  pages  of  your  second  edition. 

You  quote,  as  from  "Durell's  View  of  Foreign  Reformed  Churches,"  page  13-2.  the 
words  of  Calvin,  '•  in  a  letter  to  an  old  friend  who  had  become  a  bishop  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,"'  and  in  which  you  say  he  "expressly  recognizes  Ejjiscopacy  as  of  divine  in- 
stitution." His  words  are,  "  Episcopatus  ipse  a  Deo  profectus  est  Episcopi  Munus  Dei 
authoritate  constitutuni  est  et  legibus  definitum."  "  He  who  is  made  a  bishop  proceeds 
from  (Jod  himself  Episcopacy  was  established  by  the  authority,  and  regulated  by  the 
laws  of  God."  There  is  nothing  in  this  language  that  favors  prelacy  or  diocesan 
Episcopacy — the  Episcopacy  which  you  advocate,  and  claim  to  exercise,  as  if  sunessor 
of  the  apostles.  You  might  just  as  well  charge  the  whole  Presbyterian  Church  with  a 
belief  that  prelatical  Episcopacy  is  a  divine  institution,  and  quote  the  fourth  chapter  of 
our  form  of  government  in  proof  of  it,  as  to  quote  such  language  in  proof  of  Calvin's 
being  a  believer  in  the  divine  right  of  "  Episcopal  bishops." 

You  have  not  given  the  name  of  Calvin's  "old  friend,"  the  "bishop  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,"  to  whom  the  letter  was  addressed.  I  submit  to  your  attention  the  remarks 
of  Dr.  Miller.     "  It  is  true,"  says  the  Dr.,  "  that  language  of  this  kind  is  found  in  that 


480 

When  it  is  alleged  that  Calvin  desired  and  asked  for  "  the  apostolic 
ministry,"  i.e.  as  you  understand  it  to  mean,  Episcopal  ordination,  historical 
evidence  might  be  reasonably  expected,  nay,  justly  demanded.  Bishop  Ives 
has  not  produced  the  shadow  of  historical  evidence  except  a  statement 
found  in  Strype's  memorials  of  Cranmer,  p.  207,  and  in  his  "  life  of  Bishop 
Parker,"  pp.   09,  70,  that  Bullinger,  and  Calvin,  and  others,  wrote  to  the 

letter,  but  the  most  cursory  perusal  of  the  whole  letter  will  banish,  from  any  candid 
mind,  the  idea  that  Calvin  is  here  speaking  of  diocesan  or  prelatical  Episcopacy.  Does 
not  every  intelligent  reader  know  that  that  great  reformer  believed  and  uniformly  taught, 
that  the  office  of  bishop  (that  is,  of  the  primitive,  parochial  bishop)  was  a  divine  insti- 
tution? It  is  evidently  of  Xhis  parochial  Episcopacy  that  he  speaks,  when  writing  to  his 
'old  friend,'  in  the  language  above  quoted.  The  duties  which  he  urges  on  him,  and  the 
passages  of  Scripture  which  he  quotes  to  enforce  his  counsel,  all  show  that  it  is  that 
Episcopacy  alone  which  he  maintains  to  be  of  divine  appointment."* 

Your  next  quotation  is  from  Calvin's  appeal  (supplex  exhortatio)  to  Charles  V., 
on  the  necessity  of  reforming  the  Church.  You  have  omitted  the  very  same  words  in 
yours  which  Bishop  Ives  did  in  his  quotation,  and  which  Dr.  Miller  supplied,  as  noticed 
above,  in  his  reply.  I  here  give  you  the  original :  "  Talem  nobis  hierarchiam  si 
exhibeant :  in  qua  sic  emineant  Episcopi,  ut  Christo  non  subesse  recusent :  ut  ab  illo, 
tanquam  unico  capite,  pendeant,  et  ad  ipsum  referantur  :  in  qua  sic  inter  se  fraternam 
societatem  colant,  ut  non  alio  nodo,  quam  ejus  veritate,  sint  colligati:  tum  vero  nuUo  non 
anathemate  dignos  fateor,  si  qui  erunt,  quinon  eam  reverenter,  summaque  obedientia, 
observent.  Hoec  vero  Mendax  hierarchiae  larva,  qua  superbiunt,  quid  omnino  habet 
simile?" — Joannis  Calvini,  Magni  theologici,  Tractatus  theologici  omnes  in  unum 
vol  u men,  certis  classibus  congesti,  p.  60,  a.  b. 

You  next  refer  to  the  confession  of  faith  which  Calvin  "  composed  in  the  name  of  the 
French  churches,"  and  say  that  its  "  explicit  language"  renders  it  "  manifest''''  he  desired 
to  retain  the  Episcopal  regimen,  in  his  system  of  church  government.  I  refer  you  also 
to  the  articles,  and  say,  that  if  by  Episcopal  regimen  you  mean  prelacy,  or  the  Episco- 
pacy you  advocate,  we  are  at  issue  on  a  point  of  fact.  In  that  paper,  Calvin  uses  the 
words  bishops,  pastors  and  superintendents,  as  synonymous.  "  Interea."  says  he,  "tamen 
Ecclesioe  auctoritatem,  vel  pastorum  et  superintendentium,  quibus  Ecclesiae  regendce 
provincia  mandata  est,  sublatam  nolumus.  Fatemur  ergo  Episcopos  sive  pastores, 
reverenter  audiendos,  quatenus  pro  suce  functionis  ratione  verbum  Dei  docent."  "  In  the 
mean  time,  nevertheless,  we  are  unwilling  that  the  authority  of  the  Church,  or  of  pas- 
tors, and  of  those  superintending,  whose  office  it  is  to  govern  the  Church,  should  be 
taken  away.  We,  therefore,  confess  that  bishops  or  pastors  should  be  reverently  heard, 
in  so  far  as  they  teach  the  word  of  God  for  the  ground  of  its  functions.  (Confessio 
fidei,  nomine  Ecclesiarum  Gallicarum,  vigente  bello,  scripta,  ut  coram  S.  C.  M.  et 
illustriss.  Principibus  Germaniae,  at  que  ordinibus  in  comitiis  Francofurtensibus 
ederetur,  si  per  itinerum  difficultates  ex  Gallia  turn  eo  perveniri  potuisset,  Anno  M.  D. 
LXII.,  contained  in  Jo.  Calv.  Epist.  et  Respon  ,  p.  254,  a.)  Dr.  Miller  says  "the 
friends  of  prelacy  are  heartily  welcome  to  all  the  testimony  which  can  be  drawn  from 
that  confession.  It  is  decisively  anti-prelatical  in  its  character  throughout,  and  the 
churches  which  were  organized  on  its  basis,  were  as  thoroughly  Presbyterian  as  the 
Church  of  Scotland  ever  was."  That  Calvin  should  have  said,  as  you  quote,  "our 
learned  men  have  expressly  yielded  ordination  to  bishops"  (see  articles) ,  is  as  wide  as 
the  poles  from  proof  that  the  Episcopacy  you  advocate  met  Calvin's  approbation. 

Your  ne.xt  reference  in  proof  of  Calvin's  attachment  to  Episcopacy,  coinciding  also 
with  that  of  Bishop  Ive.s,  is  the  fact  that  "  he  censures  the  clergy  of  Collen  (Cologne  ?) 
for  endeavoring  to  put  their  head  bishop  out  of  his  place,  inasmuch  as  he  declared  in 
favor  of  reformation."  I  know  no  more  suitable  reply  to  this  than  the  argumentum  ad 
hominem  of  Dr.  Miller.  Suppose  Bishop  McCoskrey  should  become  a  most  zealous  and 
consistent  Calvinist,  as  to  his  theological  creed,  and  suppose  the  Episcopal  clergy  of 
Michigan  should  conspire,  on  that  account  alone,  to  expel  him  from  his  diocese.  Might 
I  not  remonstrate  against  the  conspiracy  without  being  attached  to  prelacy  ?  I  certainly 
should  feel  it,  both  on  groiuids  of  personal  friendship  and  your  known  attachment  to 
Evangelical  truth,  my  privilege  and  duty  to  exert  what  influence  I  might,  to  prevent 
the  rejection  of  a  sound  orthodox  bishop,  for  the  introduction  of  an  Oxlbrd  divine,  or 
other  dangerous  errorist,  without  compromiting  my  Presbyterian  principles 

•  The  Presbyterian  of  February  12,  1842. 


^    .  481 

young  King  Edward  VI.,  offering  to  make  him  their  defender,  and  to  have 

such  bishops  in  their  churches  as  there  were  in  England.     This  might  well 

^■«  have  been  done,  Avhere  the  reference  was  had  to  the  moral  and  religious 

Ifc-.    character  of  Edward  and  of  his  excellent  bishops,  and  especially  to  their 

^     decidedly  anti-prelatical  Low  Church,  or  as  we  would  say,  Presbyterian 

predilections.     It  proves  just  nothing  as  to  their  sense,  and  consequeatly  as 

Yonr  next  reference  is  also  identical  with  that  of  Bishop  Ives.  You  say  that  Calvin — 
"  writinu;  to  Ithavius,  a  Polonian  bishop,  whom  he  styles  Illuslrious  and  reverend  Lord 
Bishop — so  far  from  advising  him  to  lay  aside  his  Episcopacy,  exhorts  him  to  consider 
what  place  he  holdeth,  and  what  burden  is  upon  him."  Calvin  does  not  call  Ithavius 
'■  Right  Reverend,"  reverendissimtis ;  nor  Lord,  in  the  sense  w'hich  your  langnajre  implies, 
as  though  it  was  identical  with  the  title  your  Canada  friends,  after  the  fashion  of  the 
English  hierarchy,  give  yourself.  The  word  "dominus"  every  school-boy  knows  is 
equivalent  to  sir.  It  is  the  title  of  courtesy  which  Calvin  uses  in  addressing  the 
humblest  curate.  And  as  to  the  "illustrious,"  it  was  that  of  merited  excellence,  and 
not  of  office.  I  perceive,  from  the  use  you  have  made  of  Calvin's  courtesy,  that,  if  I 
had  happened  to  address  you  as  the  Right  Reverend  S.  A.  McCoskrey,  D  D.,  Bishop, 
&c.,  which  I  did  not,  rathen  by  accident  and  entire  ignorance  of  the  importance  I 
understand  both  you  and  your  friends  attach  to  it — disliking  and  rejecting  all  honorary 
titles  myself — than  out  of  any  uncourteous  design,  I,  too,  would  have  been  convicted, 
by  the  same  rule  you  apply  to  Calvin,  of  Episcopal  predilections.  It  behooves  me, 
therefore,  hereafter  to  be  careful  how  I  address  a  bishop. 

I  have  not,  in  any  of  my  letters,  for  a  moment  hinted  it,  nor  have  I  even  thought 
"of  advising  (you)  to  lay  aside  (your)  Episcopacy,"  nor  is  it  my  wish  you  should,,^ 
however  anxious  I  am  that  you  should  not  inculcate  the  high-toned  doctrines  on  the  . 
subject  of  apostolic  succession,  which  I  know  are  as  offensive  to  many  excellent  Epis-" 
copalians,  both  clerical  and  lay,  as  they  are  to  other  denominations.  It  is  passing 
strange,  therefore,  that  Calvin  should  be  convicted  of  Episcopal  predilections,  because 
he  did  not  advise  Bishop  Ithavius  to  quit  his  see. 

But  I  must  vindicate  Calvin,  and  while  I  do  so  discharge  a  duty  which  it  would  seem 
I  myself  owe  to  you,  inasmuch  as  I  have  undertaken  to  write  to  a  bishop,  or,  as  Calvin 
says,  scribere  ausiis  sum.  but  which,  while  I  wish  you  to  understand  it  as  being  my  most 
friendly  and  affectionate  counsel,  given  in  Calvin's  own  words,  and  for  your  personal 
benefit,  I  shall  leave  untranslated.  '"  Etsi  autem  plausum  tibi  in  mundi  theatro  conciliat 
splendida  hcec  dignitas,  cavendum  tamen  diligenter,  ne  te  demulceant  fallaces  blanditiae, 
quibus  laqueis  Satan  multos  hodie  inexitialem  labyrinthum  trahit."  The  Oxfordism 
in  some  Episcopal  Churches,  renders  it  pertinent  to  add,  "  Quid  ergo  tibi  agendum  est  ? 
Fervent  apud  vos  dissidia,  pars  una  restitui  cupit  integrum  Dei  cultum  ;  altera  impias 
superstitiones  pervieaciter  defendit.  Te  medium  stare,  quem  Deus  quasi  porrecta  manu 
aJ  causae  suae  patrocinium  vocat,  turpe  ac  n'efas  est.  Cogita  quem  locum  occupes,  et 
quod  onus  tibi  sit  impositum.  Ignosces  mihi  pro  tua  humanitate,  si  uno  in  verbo  sim 
asperior  (ijuia  ut  proficiam,  libe  re  quod  sentio  dicendum  est),  ubi  ad  coeleste  tribunal 
ventuni  fuerit,  non  posse  elui  proditionis  crimen,  nisi  te  mature  subducas  ab  la  caterva, 
quae  aperte  ad  opprimendum  Christi  nomen  conspirat ;"  and  which,  I  verily  believe,  is 
the  tendency  and  effect,  not  only  of  the  Oxford  theology,  but  of  your  doctrine  of  apos- 
tolic succession.  "Nam  vero  si  tibi  molestum  est  minui,  ut  crescat  in  te  Christus,  in 
mentem  veniat  Moses  exemplum,  qui  sub  umbris  obscuris,  Christi  tamen  opprobrium 
deiiciis  (Egyptiorum  et  opibus  prceferre  non  dubitavit."  Jo.  Calv.  Ep.  et  Resp.,  p. 
131,  a.  b. 

Your  next  reference,  in  common  with  Bishop  Ives,  is  to  Calvin's  letter  to  the  king  of 
Poland.  The  object  of  that  letter,  as  any  one  who  reads  it  may  see,  is  to  pi  omote  piety 
and  true  doctrine  in  the  Church  of  Poland.  ,  He  does  not  exhort  the  king  to  destroy  the 
hierarchy  which  was  firmly  establishe<i  there,  but  holds  up  that  of  Rome  as  altogether 
execrable,  and  urges  his  majesty  to  reform  the  Church  in  matters  which  he  deemed 
first  and  most  essential.  He  contrasts  the  hierarchy  of  the  ancient  church  w  th  that  of 
Rome,  but  distinctly  refers  to  the  provincial  primacies  as  to  the  invention  of  the 
Church,  not  as  a  divine  in.stitution.  The  ancient  Church  of  which  he  spoke  was  not 
the  apostolic  church  ;  nor  is  there  in  tlie  whole  of  that  letter  one  solitary  word  which 
would  imply — what  you  and  Bishop  Ives  have  said — that  Calvin  approved  of  all  the 
degrees  of  the  hierarchy  even  of  that  ancient  church.  He  says  that  ambition  and  pride 
fabricated  the  Roman  hierarchy.  That  of  the  ancient  church,  prior  to  the  apostate  Rom^n 
hierarchv,  he  admits,  was  instituted  by  the  Church,  for  the  purpose  of  consolidating  the 

31 


482 

to  Calvin's  views,  of  the  merits  of  prelatical  Episcopacy.  If  it  proves 
any  thing,  it  is  the  very  reverse  of  that  for  which  Bishop  Ives  cited  it.  He 
lias  assumed,  in  his  argument,  what  is  notoriously  incorrect — that  Edward 
and  his  bishops's  views  of  Episcopacy  were  identical  with  his  own  High 
Church  notions,  and  you  have  followed  after  him.  All  the  rest  of  his 
proof  is  attemjJts  at  argument,  the  utter  weakness  ivciA  fallacy  of  which 
Ur.  Miller  has,  with  his  cliaracteristic  urbanity,  exposed.  As  to  the  bishop's 
reference  to  Strype,  the  doctor  says,  "  Let  the  letter  be  produced,  and 
then  we  will  beheve ;  but  not  till  then."  The  improbability  of  there  ever 
having  been  a  letter  written,  the  doctor  has  shown,  and  adduced  the  testi- 
mony of  Dr.  Heylin,  a  bitter  opponent  of  Calvin  and  Presbyterianisra,  to 
prove  that  Calvin  was  consulted  by  Cranmer,  who  sought  his  counsel,  and 
requested  his  aid,  in  conducting  the  English  Reformation.  He  even  sent 
the  first  draft  of  the  English  Liturgy,  early  in  the  reign  of  Edward,  to 
him,  requesting  his  advice  and  criticisms,  which  Calvin  returned,  saying  he 
found  in  it  some  tolerabiles  inejitias,  tolerable  fooleries,  which  he  would 
wish  might  be  corrected,  and  which  was  accordingly  done.* 

The  fact  is,  Calvin  was  devoted  to  the  work  of  reformation — anxious  to 
see  it  advance,  but  he  was  not  such  a  zealot  or  bigot  as  to  spurn  every  ad- 
vance in  it,  because  it  did  not  come  up  fully  to  his  standard.  He  gladly 
hailed  every  step  taken  in  a  departure  from  Popery,  and  to  construe  his 
kind  feeling  and  co-operation  with  Cranmer  in  the  work  of  reforming  the 
English  Church  into  a  proof  that  he  beUeved  in  the  divine  institution  of 
Episcopacy,  as  practiced  in  that  Church,  would  be  just  about  as  logical  as 
to  say — what  is  sometimes  presumed  by  proselyting  spirits  in  your 
Church — that  because  we  Presbyterians  rejoice  in  the  religious  advance- 
union  of  her  bishops.  Then  he  supposes  an  organization  (quemadmodum  si  hodie)  for  the 
Church  of  Poland,  which  might  resemble  it  (a  delicate  way  to  hint  to  the  king  the 
nature  and  extent  of  the  reformation  to  be  sought  by  him  in  his  hierarchy) ,  and  in  de- 
tailing the  features  of  this  supposed  organization  for  Poland,  according  to  the  model  of 
the  ancient  church,  he  makes  the  Episcopacy  that  might  be  introduced  into  Poland 
agree  in  all  essential  respects  with  a  Presbyterian  organization,  where  the  archbishop 
should  be  the  permanent  moderator  of  the  synod,  and  the  provincial  or  city  bishops  the 
moderators  of  their  presbyteries — each  primus  inter  pares,  and  chosen  for  that  purpose 
from  among  themselves.  His  views  also  of  ordination,  and  of  succession,  expressed  in 
the  same  letter,  are  in  perfect  keeping.  That  you  and  Bishop  Ives  should  have  read  the 
original  of  Calvin's  letter  so  as  to  make  it  proof  of  his  approbation  of  all  the  degrees  of 
the  hierarchy  of  the  ancient  church,  founded,  as  you  teach,  in  the  apostolic  supremacy 
of  the  bishop,  and  the  three  orders  of  the  ministry,  is  so  passing  strange  that  I  shall  not 
allow  myself  to  attempt  any  solution  of  the  phenomenon.  See  the  original  letter  in 
Joh.  Calvin  ep.  pp.  85-8. 

Your  last  reference  is  also  identical  with  that  of  Bishop  Ives,  the  reply  to  which  by 
Dr.  Miller,  as  given  above,  I  had  embodied  in  this  letter  before  t  had  seen  your  second 
edition.  I  only  add,  that  the  witnesses  who  testify  to  this  fact,  related  by  Strype,  viz., 
the  Popish  Bishops  Bonner  and  Gardiner,  were,  according  to  your  own  showing,  guilty 
of  "forgery,"  and  therefore  their  word  is  of  no  authority  until  Calvin's  letters  them- 
.selves  be  produced.  They  are  not  to  be  found  among  all  his  printed  epistles.  Not  a 
hint  of  it  is  dropped  in  his  letters  to  Cranmer,  or  in  Cranmer's  to  him  Archbishop 
Abbot  does  not  say,  even  in  the  testimony  you  quote,  that  he  saw  Calvin's  letters ;. 
only  that  he  learned  from  Archbishop  Parker^s  papers  that  Calvin  desired  the  Epis- 
copacy. So  far  from  being  "  prevented  by  untoward  circumstances  from  retaining  the 
Episcopal  regimen"  in  the  Church  of  Geneva,  he  even  states,  e.xpressly,  that  the  Pres- 
byterian system  of  government  which  he  introduced  there,  was  his  deliberate  choice, 
and  that  the  church  had  been  reformed  agreeably  to  God's  word,  the  only  rule.  {See  his 
epistle  ad  quendam  Curatum.) 

*  See  Presbyterian  of  February  12,  1842. 


483 

ment  of  your  churches,  the  increase  of  evangelical  men  and  principles 
among  you,  and  care  not  to  press  our  peculiarities,  but  are  willing  to  aid 
and  to  countenance  every  effort  made  for  improvement  in  true  religion 
among  you,  therefore  we  have  become  enamoured  with  Episcopacy — 
gown  and  surplice,  lawn  sleeves  and  miter,  liturgy  and  Episcopal  bishops, 
and  all,  and  would  gladly  receive  the  whole,  if  circumstances  beyond  con- 
trol did  not  prevent  it !  Yet,  such  I  am  constrained  to  believe,  is  the  only 
pretext  for  claiming  Calvin  for  the  Episcopate,  at  least  until  you  show 
where,  "on  the  plea  of  necessity,"  it  has  ever  been  "said  (by  Calvin)  that 
he  could  not  receive  the  apostolic  ministry  from  circumstances  beyond  his 
control."  , 


APPENDIX  C. 

ON    THE    TITLE,    "  ELDERS." 

A  Distinction  in  their  respective  Inunctions. 

That  thi^  distinction  is  supported  on  the  authority  of  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures,  will  appear  from  the  "  concurrent  opinion"  both  of  the  "  early 
fathers,"  and  modern  divines  of  different  "  denominations,  down  to  a  recent 
period." 

Cyjyrian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  between  a.d.  246-258.  Bishop  Fell,  in 
commenting  on  his  twenty-ninth  Epistle,  which  is  "  addressed  to  the  elders 
and  deacons,"  from  "  the  manner  in  which  he  there  speaks  of  elders," 
says,  in  a  foot  note,  that  "  St  Paul  appears  to  have  distinguished  ( 1  Tim. 
5  :  IV)  anciently  between  ruling  elders  and  teachers."* 

Oriyen,  between  204-250.  Archbishop  Potter,  in  speaking  of  Origen's 
"account  (Adv.  Celsum,  hb.  3,  p.  142,  ed.  Cant.)  of  Church  discipline  as 
administered  in  his  age,"  quotes  him  as  representing  that  "  tliey  who  have 
been  but  lately  introduced,  and  have  not  received  the  svmbol  of  purifica- 
tion (that  is,  baptism),  are  assigned  to  a  different  place  from  the  rest,  who 
have  already  given  full  proof  of  their  sincere  resolution  to  addict  them- 
selves wholly  to  the  Christian  doctrine  and  way  of  life.  Some  of  these  lat- 
ter ARE  ORDAINED  to  inquire  into  the  lives  and  conversations  of  those  who 
present  themselves  to  be  admitted,  in  order  to  prohibit  infamous  and  vile 
persons  from  coming  into  their  assembly  ;f"  characteristics,  it  is  contended, 
which  can  apply  to  "  the  position  and  functions"  on  none  other  than  ruling 
elders, 

*  Epistle  29.     Bremne.     1690. 

t  Potter  on  Church  Government,  Chapter  V. 


484 

Hilary,  of  the  fourth  century,  says :  "  The  synagogues,  and  afterwards 
the  Chvirch.  had  elders,  without  whose  council  nothing  was  transacted  in 
the  Cluirch."  And  he  adds:  "by  wliat  negligence  it  fell  into  disuse,  I 
know  not,  unless,  perhaps,  by  the  indolence,  or  rather  by  the  pride,  of  the 
teachers,  while  they  alone  wished  to  appear  something."''  This  rendering 
of  Hilary,  or  Ambrose,  though  disputed  by  some,  "  has  been  owned  by 
eminent  men  of  all  parties — by  Bucer,  Peter  Martyr,  Calvin,  Whitgift, 
Zanchius,  etc.,  etc." 

The  Wa/denses.j  Dr.  Blair,  in  the  appendix  to  his  history  of  this  inte- 
resting people,  qu(]tes  from  their  "  Book  of  Discipline,"  on  the  "  article  con- 
cerning elders,"  the  following  :  "  Rulers  and  elders  are  chosen  out  of  the 
people,  according  to  the  diversity  of  the  work  in  the  unity  of  Christ." 
And,  "  in  a  separate  article  on  excommunication,"  they  speak  of  the  rulers 
by  whom  the  Church  is  governed  and  conserved.  In  relation  to  these  pas- 
sages, Mr.  Blair  remarks — "  They  had  three  orders  of  men  above  their 
ordinary  members  ;  the  bishop  or  teaching  elder,  the  lay  elder,  and  the 
deacon,"  etc.J    . 

"  At  the  time  of  the  reformation,  the  creeds  and  confessions  of  almost 
all  reformed  countries  emphatically  avowed  the  divine  appointment  of  this 
office — the  reformed  Churches  of  Switzerland,  Poland,  Germany,  Holland, 
Belgium  and  France.  Even  the  Church  of  England  is  no  exception.  The 
same  convocation  which  passed  the  Xhirty-nine  Articles,  sanctioned  a 
Catechism  drawn  up  by  the  Rev.  Dean  Noweil,  in  which  the  maintenance 
of  discipline  by  a  ruling  eldership  is  unequivocally  advocated.  In  the  con- 
cluding part  of  Mr.  Nowell's  Catechism,  the  following  answer  is  given  as 
to  the  best  means  of  remedying  impure  communion  : — "  In  well-constituted 
and  well-regulated  churches,  a  certain  plan  and  order  of  government,  as  I 
have  already  said,  was  instituted  and  observed.  Elders  were  chosen — that 
is,  ecclesiastical  magistrates — in  order  to  maintain  and  conduct  ecclesiasti- 
cal discipline.  To  these  belonged  authority,  reprimand,  and  chastisement 
by  censure.  These^  with  the  co-operation  of  the  pastor,'^  etc.§  And  in 
proof,  he  refers,  among  other  passages,  to  1  Tim.  5  :  lY. 

So,  Peter  Martyr,  who,  on  "  the  invitation  of  Edward  VI."  came  to 
England,  and  "  became  afterwards  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Oxford.  Hav- 
ing cited  the  words,  •  he  that  ruleth  with  diligence,'  he  proceeds  :  *  al- 
though I  doubt  not  that  there  were  many  rulers  in  the  Church,  yet,  to  con- 
fess the  truth,  this  appears  to  me  to  be  most  aptly  understood  of  ciders  ; 
not  indeed  of  those  who  presided  over  the  dispensation  of  word  and  doc- 
trine, but  of  those  who  were  given  as  assistants  to  pastors,'  etc.  '  For  the 
Church  had  its  elders  ;  or,  so  to  speak,  its  senate,  who  consulted  about 
things  as  the  time  demanded.'  And,  quoting  1  Timothy  5  :  17,  he 
says  :  '  by  which  words  he  [Paul]  seems  to  intimate  that  there  are  some 
elders  who  teach  and  propound  the  Word  of  God ;  and  that  there  are  others 
also,  while  they  do  not  this,  nevertheless  preside  in  the  Church  as  presby- 
ters or  elders. 'II 

"  Dr.  Thomas  Goodwin,  one  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines, 
who  ranks  with  the  most  learned  Independents  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, in  his  Commenlary  on  Romans  12,  verse  8,  says:  '  Though  to  rule  is 

*  Comment.  Sancti  Ambrosii.     1  Tim.  f>  :  1.  t  See  pages, 

t  Blair's  Hi.story  of  the  Waldenses,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  .'j:^  1-530,  and  -540, 
\  Noelli  Catech.,  contained  in  the  Enchiridion  Theologium  of  Bishop  Randolph. 
li  Loci  Communes,  class,  quar.  cap.  1,  p.  74G.   London,  15S3. 


"485 

a  pastor's  office,  as  woU  as  an  elder's,  yet  the  elder  is  more  especially  said 
to  rule,  because  he  is  wholly  set  apart  to  it,'  "  etc.* 

"  Tlie  Rev.  Thomas  Hooker,  a  celebrated  Independent  pastor  of  New- 
England,  in  his  '  Survey  of  Church  Discipline,'  resolutely  defends  '  the 
ruling-  elder's  place.'  He  declares  that  Rom.  12  :  7  'gives  in  witness  to 
this  truth,  where  all  these  officers  are  numbered  and  named  expressly.'  "f 

"  The  Independents  of  Em/land  witnessed  in  times  past  to  tlie  same 
principle."  The  historian,  Neale,  quoting  from  Bradshaw's  Treatise,  en- 
titled, "  English  Puritanism,"  under  chapter  4,  which  treats  concernintr  the 
elders,  says  :  "  1.  They  hold  that,  by  God's  ordinance,  tlie  congreg^ation 
should  choose  other  officers,  as  assistants  to  the  ministers  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church,  who  are,  jointly  with  the  ministers,  to  be  overseers  of 
the  manners  and  conversation  of  all  the  congregation.  2.  That  these  are 
to  be  cliosen  out  of  the  gravest  and  most  discreet  members,  who  are  also 
of  some  note  in  the  world,  and  able  (if  possible)  to  maintain  themselves.''^ 

Dr.  Doddridge,  another  eminent  Congregationalist,  says,  in  commentinj^ 
on  1  Timothy,  5  :  lY  (especially  they  who  labor)  :  "  This  seems  to  insinu- 
ate that  there  v/ere  some  who,  though  they  presided  in  the  Church,  were 
not  employed  in  preaching." 

Dr.  Dwight,  late  President  of  Yale  College,  New  Haven,  Connecticut, 
thus  writes  in  his  "System  of  Theology,"  (Vol.  5,  p.  17I):  "  Preachino- 
is  every  where  in  the  Scriptures  exhibited  as  an  employment  suj)erior  to 
that  of  ruling.  In  the  passage  quoted  from  1  Timothy  5  :  17,  this 
truth  is  decidedly  exhibited.  Here  St.  Paul  directs  that  preaching  elders 
should  be  accounted  worthy  of  more  honor  than  ruling  elders." 

"The  celebrated  Dr.  Oiocn,  one  of  the  brightest  ornaments  of  Inde- 
pendencg,"  in  his  Treatise  on  the  "  True  Nature  of  a  Gospel  Church," 
chapter  V,  warmly  advocates  the  above  distinction  between  the  preaching 
and  ruling  elder  at  considerable  length.  We  have  only  room,  however,  for 
the  following :  He  says  :  "  The  pattern  of  the  first  churches  constituted  by 
the  apostles,  which  it  is  our  duty  to  imitate  and  follow  as  our  rule,  con- 
stantly expresseth  and  declares  that  many  elders  were  appointed  by  them 
in  every  Church.  There  is  no  mention  in  the  Scripture,  no  mention  in  an- 
tiquity, of  any  Church  wherein  there  were  not  more  elders  than  one,  nor 
doth  that  Church  answer  the  original  pattern  where  it  is  otherwise." 
Then,  in  another  Treatise,  on  "  Worsliip  and  Discipline,"  by  way  of  question 
and  answer,  speaking  of  these  "  many  elders,"  he  says — Question  31 : 
"Are  there  any  appointed  elders  in  the  Church,  whose  office  and  duty 
consist  in  rule  and  government  o)dg  ?  Answer :  Elders  not  called  to 
teach  ordinarily,  or  administer  the  sacraments,  but  to  assist  and  help  in  the 
rule  and  government  of  the  Church,  are  mentioned  in  Scripture  (Rom.  12  : 
8,  1  Cor.  12  :  28,  1  Tim.  5,  17).  Explication:  This  office  of  ruling  elders 
in  the  Church  is  much  opposed  by  some,  and  in  especial  by  tlu-ra  who  have 
least  reason  so  to  do.  The  qualifications  of  these  elders,  with  the  way  of 
their  call  and  setting  apart  unto  their  office,  being  tlie  same  with  those  of 
the  teaching  elders  before  insisted  on,  need  not  be  here  again  repeated. 
Their  authority,  also,  in  the  whole  rule  of  the  Church,  is  every  way  the 
same  with  that  of  the  other  sort  of  elders,  and  they  are  to  act  in  the  exe- 

*The  Government  of  the  Church,  book  0,  c.  S. 

t  Quoted  by  Dr.  Millur— Ofiice  of  Ruling  Elder,  ch   7. 

j  History  of  the  Puritans,  Part  ;2,  chapter  1,  p.  1 10,  1th  edition. 


486 

cution  of  it  with  equal  respect  and  regard  from  the  Church.  Yea,  the 
business  of  rule  being  peculiarly  committed  unto  them,  and  they  required 
to  attend  thereunto  with  diligence,  in  an  especial  manner,  the  work  thereof 
is  principally  theirs,  as  that  of  laboring  in  the  word  and  doctrine  doth  es- 
pecially belong  unto  the  pastors  and  teachers  of  the  churches." 

Finally,  Archbishop  Whately  says : — "  The  plan  pursued  by  the  apos- 
tles seems  to  have  been  to  establish  a  great  number  of  small  (in  compari- 
son with  most  modern  churches),  distinct,  and  independent  communities, 
each  governed  by  its  own  single  bishop,  consulting,  no  doubt,  with  his  own 
presbyters,  and  accustomed  to  act  in  concurrence  with  them,"  etc.* 

I  close  these  remarks  with  a  few  words  to  the  "  multiplied  denomina- 
tions" outside  of  "  the  Church."     To  my  mind,  at  least, 

1.  There  is  a  distinction  to  be  observed  between  what  constitutes  the 
elements  of  a  scriptural  ministry,  and  those  which  appertain  to  matters  of 
government  and  discipline.  Both  classes  of  elements  are  deducible  from  the 
Scriptures,  and  tlie  functions  of  the  former  have  to  do  more  or  less  with 
the  exercise  of  the  latter.  But  I  submit  whether,  in  regard  to  the  former, 
there  is  not  a  clearness  if  not  an  explicitness  in  the  instructions  given, 
which  will  not  apply  to  the  latter.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  reference  to 
the  variations,  in  the  matter  of  government  and  discipline,  wiiich  have  ob- 
tained among  the  several  branches  of  the  Church  of  Christ  since  the 
period  of  the  Reformation ;  while  they  have,  nevertheless,  by  a  coincidence 
as  undesigned  as  it  is  extraordinary,  adopted  the  same  divinely-appointed 
order  of  the  ministry.  This  clearly  shows  that  they  were  guided  by  the 
principle,  that  while  the  instructions  of  the  New  Testament  in  reference  to 
that  ministry  which  was  designed  for  the  ordinary  and  permanent  service 
of  the  Church  for  all  coming  time  was  clear  and  definite  ;  those  which  re- 
lated to  the  plan  of  church  government  were  too  indefinite,  not  in  its  principles 
but  in  their  adjustment,  to  lead  to  a  claim  for  any  ecclesiastical  system,  in 
exact  accordance  with  the  scriptural  model. "f  Hence,  what  I  contend  for 
as  essential  is,  the  theory  of  ministerial  parity  in  its  generic  presbytcrial 
sense.  And  while,  for  myself,  I  prefer  that  form  of  government  and  dis- 
cipline in  the  Church  as  constituted  of  the  "  representatives  of  the  people, 
■with  their  pastors,"  as,  in  my  judgment  most  in  accordance  with  the  New 
Testament  "  model ;"  and  which,  with  some  diversity  in  names,  and  in  the 
minuter  details  of  their  ecclesiastical  proceedings,  has  been  adopted  by 
"  the  Reformed  Churches  in  France,  Holland,  Germany,  Switzerland, 
Scotland,"  and  the  United  States ;  it  is  enough  for  me  that  God  has 
stamped  with  the  seal  of  His  approbation  other  ecclesiastical  forms,  where 
•'  the  ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments"  are  recognized  as  "  officialli/ 
equal."  This  is  true  of  the  Congregational  platform.  So  also  of  Episco- 
pacy, as  founded  on  the  basis  of  expediency,  and  of  which  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  may  be  taken  in  illustration.  These  several  bodies 
"  differ  mainly  only  in  relation  to  points  not  essential  to  salvation."  "  Unit- 
ing, as  they  do,  in  a  recognition  of  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  faith  in 
Christ  as  a  cardinal  truth,"  their  diff'erence  of  views  on  the  subject  of  gov- 
ernment and  discipline  forms  the  principal  barrier  to  their  external  union. 
On  the  other  hand,  prelacy,  being  constituted  of  an  alleged  Christianized 
priesthood   of    "  divers    orders,"    claims  the    possession   of    functions    or 

*  Kingdom  of  Christ,  p.  165. 

t  Dr.  Dickinson's  Discourse  on  the  Church  of  Christ,  p.  19. 


487 

powers,  sacerdotal  or  vicarial,  governmental  and  disciplinary,  as  inherent 
rights,  within  itself. 

While,  then,  on  this  latter  hypothesis — an  hypothesis  which,  carried  out 
in  loijfical  sequence,  not  only  raises  non-essentials  to  a  level  with,  but 
elevates  them  above,  those  that  are  fundamental — I  can  discover  nothing 
but  tlie  most  radical  elements  of  disunion  ;  in  regard  to  the  other,  to  use 
the  language  of  the  distinguished  Chalmers  in  his  speech  at  the  first 
"  General  Assembly  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,"  May  18,  1845, 
"I  trust  that  you  will  not  charge  me  with  over-liberality,  if  I  say,  as  I  do 
from  my  conscience,  that  among  the  great  majority  of  Evangelical  Dissent- 
ers in  this  country,  I  am  not  aware  of  any  topics  of  difference  which  I  do 
not  regard  as  so  many  men  of  straw ;"  and  I  hope  j^et  to  see  the  day 
when  the  hearts  of  the  various  denominations  "  Evangelical,  will  meet 
together,  and  consult  to  make  a  bonfire  of  them."  "  Yes,  while  I  de- 
precate the  latitudinarianism  that  would  lay  too  little  stress  on  what 
is  important,  I  feel  as  if  I  could  not  sufficiently  deprecate  and  denounce 
the  evil  of  that  ultra  and  exclusive  sectarianism  which  lays  too  great  stress 
upon  what  is  insignificant,  and  the  suppression  of  which  would  remove 
a  mighty  obstacle  which  at  present  lies  in  the  way  of  a  visible  union  of 
Christians."* 


APPENDIX  D. 


WALDENSES. 

The  circumstances  of  time,  etc.,  of  the  origin  of  this  singularly  pious, 
interesting,  and  simple-minded  people,  and  of  the  appellation  by  "which 
they  are  distinguished,  is  involved  in  some  degree  of  uncertainty.  Yet, 
from  the  fact  that  they  claim  a  descent  from  those  followers  of  Christ 
■who,  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  to  escape  from  the  hands  of  the 
Roman  emperors,  took  refuge  in  the  deep,  secluded,  and  almost  unknown 
valleys  which  begirt  the  lofty  Alps  ;  and  also,  that  even  their  bitterest 
enemies  in  the  Romish  ranks  who  have  written  against  them, — Reinerius, 
Peter  de  Pillichdorf,  Rorenco  and  Cassini,  confess  that  their  Churches  are 
of  much  more  ancient  date  than  the  time  of  Peter  Waldo,  a.d.  1170  ;  we 
are  warranted  in  placing  them  in  the  ranks  of  those  witnesses  for  the  truth 
•whom  God  has  preserved  as  the  immutable  pledge  of  His  faithfulness  to 
the  Church,  that  against  her  the  gates  of  hell  never  should  prevail.' 

Some  derive  the  name  Waldenses  from  "  Wald,"  a  German  appellation 
for  a  wood.     The  name  in  Latin  is  "  Vallenses,  which  signifies  the  men  of 

(1>  Matt.  16  :  18. 
*  D'Aubigne's  Germany,  England  and  Scotland,  p.  139.     New  York  :  Carter,  1848. 


488 

the  valleys."  Occupying  also  the  ancient  province  of  Upper  Languedoc 
in  France,  they  were  called  Alhigknsks,  from  Albi,  one  of  its  cities.  From 
this  province,  however,  they  were  expelled  in  the  twelfth  century.  They 
still  occupy  "n  small  country  on  the  Italian  side  of  the  Alps,"  and  are 
therefore  Italians  ;  and  as  such,  being  denominated  Vaudois  by  the  French, 
tliey  should  be  distinguished  from  "  the  inhabitants  of  tlie  Canton  de 
Vaud,  in  Switzerland,  who  are  also  called  Vaudois  in  French,  but  who  oc- 
cupy a  country  that  is  at  least  150  miles  distant"  from  them.* 

It  is  also  of  importance  to  remark  in  this  place,  that  some  remains  of 
thie  M.anicheans,  and  Arians,  who  found  shelter  among  the  Albigenses,  r/- 
ceived  the  same  name,  which  circumstances,  together  with  the  fact  of  their 
being  sometimes  confounded  with  the  followers  of  Peter  Waldo,  called  the 
Poor  Men  of  Lyons,  Humihati,  Sabbatali,  etc.,  but  who  advocated  a  com- 
rannit)^  of  goods,  and  who  continued  to  fraternize  with  Rome  in  the  articles 
of  celibacy  and.  other  monkish  austerities ;  and  also  with  the  Lombards,! 
another  fraternity  of  monks,  but  who,  though  they  assumed  the  appear- 
ance of  deep  humility,  yet  adopted  the  Arian  creed,  and  were  great  ene- 
mies to  the  Waldenses,  have  subjected  them  to  the  imputation  of  having 
taught  the  vilest  heresies  and  practiced  the  grossest  enormities.  That 
these  accusations,  however,  are  without  the  least  foundation  in  truth,  we 
have  only  to  refer  to  the  fact,  that  Reinerius,  the  Romish  inquisitor,  in  the 
preface  of  his  report  of  the  heresy  of  the  Waldenses,  comprehends  their 
faults  under  the  following  particulars  :  "  That  they  reviled  the  Roman 
Church,  and  the  clergy,  and  condemned  the  sacraments,  the  saints,  and 
the  approved  customs  of  the  Church ;  but  that  they  were  of  a  composed 
and  modest  demeanor,  chaste,  frugal,  hating  pride,  lying,  swearing,  fraud." 


APPENDIX  E. 


POPE  JOAN. 

[Having  inserted  the  above  name  in  our  Catalogues  of  the  Popes,  in  ad- 
dition to  my  own  remarks  on  the  subject  as  an  historical  fact,  I  herewith 
transcribe  the  following  from  the  pen  of  the  Rev.  George  Peck,  D.D.,  in 
his  review  of  the  controvei-sy  between  the  Rev.  Drs.  Potts  and  Wain- 
wright,  and  inserted  in  the  Methodist  Quarterly  Review  for  January,  1845, 
pp.*149-153. 

The  writer,  having  argued  "  that  the  Romish  Catalogues  are  not  all  reli- 

*  Amer.  and  For.  Christ.  Union,  Vol.  I.,  Nos.  3,  4,  et  seq.  See  also  Spanheim's 
Eccles.  Hist.,  pp.  400,  401. 

t  The  Loinli,ircls,  a.d.  568,  under  Albion,  invaded  Italy,  and  erected  a  new  kingdom 
al  Ticiniim  (Pavia^  Waged  war  wilh  yno  Creek?,  a  n.  5SG.  Attacked  Ravenna,  and 
became  masters  of  the  Exarchate  and  Pentapoli.f,  a.d.  751.  But,  under  Desiderius  their 
king,  Charlemagne  j)nt  an  end  to  their  idngdoai  in  Italy,  a.d.  774. 


489 

able,"  and  that  "  they  are  often  fictitious,  absurd,   and   self-contradictory, 
on  the  subject  of  the  above  named  Pope,  he  says  :] 

"  We  may  piove  this  position  from  what  we  find  in  Romish  writers  in 
relation  to  the  famous  Joan,  the  female  pope.  As  to  name  and  date, 
there  is  no  pope  for  several  centuries  more  clearly  identified  by  Romish 
writers.  In  an  old  Latin  copy  of  the  Lives  of  the  Popes,  by  Platina — 
himself  a  faithful  servant  of  tiio  pope — and  dedicating  his  work  to  Sixtws 
IV.,  '  A.D.  1681,'  we  have  the  Life  of  Pope  '  loannes  VIII'  (a.d.  854), 
between  Leo  IV.  and  Benedict  III.  '  This  story,'  he  says,  '  I  have  related 
barely  and  in  short,  lest  I  should  seem  obstinate  and  pertinacious  if  I  had 
omitted  what  is  so  generally  talked :  I  had  better  mistake  with  the  rest  of 
the  world  ;  though  it  be  certain,  that  what  I  have  related  may  be  thoufht 
not  altogether  incredible.'* 

"  Omqihrius,  the  commentator  and  continuator  of  Platina,  tries  various 
expedients  to  get  rid  of  this  story.  His  first  objection  is  substantially  re- 
peated by  Harding  in  opposition  to  Bishop  Jewel,  thus  :  "  Thouo-h  men 
had  at  that  time  been  so  far  bewitched  and  distracted  of  their  wits  as  they 
could  not  have  known  a  woman  from  a  man  (which  no  wise  man,  I  mean, 
believeth),  yet  it  is  not  to  be  thought  that  God  himself,  who  appointed  and 
ordained  the  See  of  Peter,  whereof  he  would  the  whole  Church  to  be  di- 
rected, would  depart  so  far  from  his  merciful  providence  toward  the 
Church,  as  to  sufixjr  the  same  to  be  polluted  by  a  woman,  which  is  not  of 
capacity  for  holy  orders.' 

"  To  this  Bishop  Jewel  replies  in  this  straight-forward  old-fashioned 
style :  '  This  guess,  M.  Harding,  presumeth  over  far  of  God's  providence. 
And  therefore  Antoninus,  the  Archbishop  of  Florence,  when  he  had  opened 

*  We  here  give,  for  the  benefit  of  the  scholar,  the  whole  story,  which  he  will  agree 
with  us  would  scarcely  be  suitable  for  the  public  eye  in  a  literal  translation. 

.      "  lOANNES    VIII. 

"  Joannes  Anglicus,  ex  Maguntiaco  oriundus,  malis  artibus  (ut  aiunt)  pontificatum 
adeptus  est.  Mentitus  enim  sexum,  cum  fcemina  esset,  adolescens  admodum  Athenas 
cum  amatore  viro  docto  proficiscitur :  ibique  prfcceptores  bonarum  artium  audiendo  la- 
tum proJecit,  ut  Roraain  veiiiens,  paucos  admodum  etiam  in  sacris  litteris  pares  haberet, 
ne  dum  superiores.  Legendo  autem  et  dispiitando  docte  et  acute,  tantum  benevolentiac 
et  auctoritatis  sibi  comparavit,  ut  mortuo  Leone  in  ejus  locum  (ut  Martinus  ait)  omnium 
consensu  poutifex  crearetur.  Verum  postea  a  servo  compressa,  cum  aliquamdiu  occulte 
ventrem  tulisset,  tandem,  dum  ad  Lalheranensem  basilicam  proficisceretur.  inter  tbea- 
trum  (quod  Colossenum  vocant  a  Neronis  colosso)  et  sanctum  Clementem,  doloribus 
circunnenta  peperit :  eoque  loci  mortua,  pontificatiis  sui  anno  secundo,  mense  uno,  die- 
busquattuor,  sine  uUo  honore  sepelitur.  Sunt  qui  ob  haec  scribant,  pontificem  ipsum, 
qnaiido  ad  Lateranensem  basilicam  proficiscitur,  detestandi  facinoris  causa,  et  viam 
illam  consulto  declinare,  et  ejusdem  vitandi  erroris  causa,  dum  primo  in  sede  Petri  col- 
locatur,  ad  eam  rem  perforata,  genitalia  ab  ultimo  diacono  attrectari.  De  primo  non 
abnuerim  de  secundo  ita  sentio,  sedem  iliam  ob  id  paratam  esse,  ut  qui  in  tanto  magus- 
tatu  constituitur,  sciat  se  non  Deum,  sed  hominem  esse ;  et  necessitatibus  naturre.  ut 
pote  egerandi  subjectom  esse,  unde  merito  stercoraria  sedes  vocatur.  Hkc.  qu-e  di.xi, 
vulgo  feruntur,  incertistamen  et  obscuris  auctoribus  :  qurc  ideo  ponere  breviter  et  nude 
institui,  ne  obstinate  nimium  et  pertinaciter  omisisse  videar,  quod  fere  omnes  affirmant : 
erremus  etiam  nos  hac  in  re  cum  vulgo,  quaquam  appareal,  ea  quae  dixi,  ex  his  esse, 
quoe  fieri  posse  creduntnr.  Sunt  qui  dicant.  hnjus  temporibus  beati  Vincentii  corpus  e 
Valentia  citerioris  Hispaninc  civitate,  a  quodam  monacho  in  pagum  Albiensem  ulterioris 
Gallirp  deportatum.  Dirunt  pra?terea.  Lotharium  jam  grandem  natu.  sumpto  monacho- 
rum  habitu,  filium  Ludovicum  imperatorem  reliquisse,  qui  statim  in  Germaniam  proitin- 
ciam  rediens,  omnes  ad  arma  spectantes  sua  pr.T.seutia  in  ollicio  conlinuit.' "' — Hhtoria 
B.  FlatiruE  de  vilis  pontificiun  liomanoruni,  pp.  13;j,  134. 


490 

this  whole  story  of  Pope  Joan,  being  offended  with  the  strangeness  and 
admiration  of  the  matter,  could  not  refrain  himself  from  crying  out,  '  O 
the  depth  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God  !  how  inscrutable  are  his 
judgments.'  And  wliy  might  not  Pope  Joan  have  as  good  right  and  in- 
terest unto  the  See  of  Rome  as  afterward  had  Pope  John  XIII.,  who,  be- 
ing pope,  had  wicked  company  with  two  of  his  own  sisters ;  or  others, 
whom  for  their  horrible  vices  and  wickedness  Platina  calls  momlerH  against 
kind,  and  ill-shapen  creatures?  Luitprandus  saith,  as  it  is  before  re- 
ported, '  The  PoiKs  imlace  of  Lateran  in  Rome  is  noio  become  a  steiv  of 
harlots.'  Now,  how  much  more  injury  could  be  inflicted  upon  '  the  seat 
of  Peter'  by  Pojie  Joan  than  by  many  male  popes  who  have  occupied  it,  is 
certainly  worthy  of  inquiry,  before  we  yield  to  the  objection. 

Onuphritis  also  objects  that  Anastasius,  who  lived  at  this  time,  and 
gives  an  account  of  the  death  of  Leo,  and  the  elevation  of  Benedict,  is  silent 
about  Pope  Joan. 

"  Painulphus,  in  his  Polychronican^i  gives  us  the  reasons  why  the  histori- 
ans of  the  time  omitted  it :  'jjrojjter  turpitudinem  rei — the  vileness  of  the 
thing.'  Be  this  as  it  may,  we  have  strong  Roman  Catholic  authority  for 
this  piece  of  history.  Martinus  Palonus,  who  was  penitentiaiy  to  Nicholas 
III.,  and  afterward  Archbishop  of  Casensa — Marianus  Scotus,  a.d.  1080, 
a  monk  and  a  chronicler  upon  whom  the  Romanists  have  placed  much  de- 
pendence in  dating  their  councils — Sighert,  abbot  of  Gerablaus,  who  lived 
A.D.  1100 — Petrarch,  who  lived  in  the  fourteenth  century,  and  many  oth- 
ers, give  the  account  as  veritable  history.  After  an  examination  of  the 
whole  matter,  Bishop  Jewel  makes  up  the  account  thus : — 

"  '  But  let  truth  be  falsehood,  and  let  stories  be  fable.  Yet  M.  Harding, 
it  may  please  you  to  remember,  that  the  same  fable  was  raised  in  Rome, 
and  from  thence  only,  and  from  no  place  else,  was  published  abroad  into 
the  world.  But  let  the  pope's  own  secretaries  and  all  the  people  there  be 
deceived ;  and,  to  shadow  the  shame  of  that  See,  let  Rome  itself  be  the 
mother  of  lies.  Let  no  man  know  the  certain  truth  of  matters,  but  only 
Onuphrius,  the  pope's  parasite,  and  M.  Harding.  Yet  neither  would  so 
many  chronicles  have  recorded,  nor  would  the  whole  world  so  universally 
have  believed,  these  things  of  the  popes,  more  than  of  any  other  bishops, 
had  there  not  been  wonderful  corruption  of  manners,  and  dissolution  of 
life,  and  open  horror,  and  filthiness  in  that  only  See,  above  all  others. 

"  '  Howbeit,  good  Christian  reader,  that  thou  mayst  well  and  clearly 
understand  that  our  dealing  herein  is  plain  and  simple,  and  that  we  have 
not  imagined  these  matters,  or  any  parcel  thereof  ourselves,  may  it  please 
thee  to  read  Platina  in  lohanne  VIII.  ;  SabelUcus,  Enneadis  9,  lib.  1  ; 
Leonicus  Chalcocondyla,  a  Greek  wiiter,  lib.  6  ;  Marianus  Scotus,  that 
lived  about  the  year  of  our  Lord  1028  ;  Sigibertus  Gemblacensis,  that  lived 
about  the  year  of  our  Lord  1100  ;  Martinus  Polonus,  the  pope's  peniten- 
tiary, whom  M.  Harding  so  much  defaceth,  that  lived  about  the  year  of  our 
Lord  1320  ;  Ravisius  Texton  in  Officina,  Ca.  F(xmina:  habitum  verilem 
mentilce  ;  Antoninus,  the  archbishop  of  Florence,  part  2,  tit.  16  ;  Volater- 
ranus  ;  Nauclerus  ;  Car  ion  ;  Constaniius  Phrygio  ;  Christianus  Mo.ssceus  ; 
Matthoeus  Palmerius  Florentinus  ;  Ansdmus  Rid  ;  Johannes  Parisicnsis, 
cap.  20;  Sup)p)lemcuta  Chronica r a 7n  ;  Chronica  Ckronicarum  ;  Fasciculus 
temporum,  and  others  more.  Of  these  some  lived  four  hundred,  some  five 
hundred  years  ago  ;  and  have  ever  been  counted  worthy  of  some  authority. 
Notwithstanding,  for  your  dame  Joan's  sake,  you,  M.  Harding,  begin  now 


491 

to  clip  their  credit.  Howbeit,  whatsoever  they  were,  certain  it  is  they  were 
no  Lutherans.  All  these  with  one  consent  agree  together,  that  dame  Joan 
was  Pope  of  Rome.' — Defense,  p.  352. 

"  Here  is  a  strong  array  of  Roman  Catholic  authorities  in  favor  of  the  fact 
of  a  female  pope.  We  do  not  pretend  to  say  that  the  evidence  is  conclu- 
sive, indeed  we  doubt  whether  it  is  sufficiently  sustained.  Blondcl  and 
Bower,  two  great  Protestant  writers,  have  investigated  the  matter  more 
fully  than  others,  and  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  story  is  fabulous. 
Their  conclusions  are  based  upon  the  want  of  cotemporaneous  history,  the 
first  notice  taken  of  it  being  by  an  author  who  lived  some  two  hundred 
years  after  the  event  is  said  to  have  transpired.  Bower,  however,  says  what 
no  one  denies,  that  '  the  female  pope  owes  her  existence  and  her  promotion 
to  the  Roman  Catholics  themselves ;  for  by  them  the  fable  was  invented, 
was  published  to  the  world  by  their  priests  and  monks  before  the  Refor- 
mation, and  was  credited,  upon  their  authority,  even  by  those  who  were 
most  zealously  attached  to  the  holy  See,  and  among  the  rest  by  St.  Antoninus, 
Archbishop  of  Florence,  nor  did  they  begin  to  confute  it  till  Protestants 
reproached  them  with  it,  as  reflecting  great  dishonor  upon  the  See  of  St. 
Peter.' — History  of  the  Popes. 

"  The  case  then  is  this.  There  is  given  in  the  chronicles  to  which  recourse 
is  had  for  the  Romish  succession,  written  by  the  '  priests  and  monks'  of 
the  Church  of  Rome — credited  and  related  by  the  high  functionaries  of  that 
church,  archbishojys  and  jjenitentiaries,  and  universalhj  believed  for  the 
space  of  five  hundred  years — the  name  of  a  female  pope — fictitious,  if  you 
please — who  is  said  to  have  reigned  about  two  years  and  a  half  and  or- 
dained  bishops  !  Thus  we  have  the  '  quod  ab  omnibus'  evidence  for  five 
centuries  to  a  female  link  in  the  succession  which  Catholics — Roman  and 
Anglican — now  laugh  at  as  a  fable  of  the  monks.  Now  let  the  reader  not 
forget  that  it  is  to  these  very  chroniclers  that  our  successionists  go  to 
identify  each  link  of  the  Romish  succession  for  at  least  the  space  of  eight 
centuries!  Doubtless  all  their  'records' — excepting  that  of  'dame 
Joan — 'are  as  susceptible  of  proof  as  the  genuineness  and  authenticity 
of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament !'  Dr.  Wainwright  being  the  judge. 

"  We  will  close  what  we  have  to  say  upon  this  matter  with  a  brief  notice  of 
the  explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  story  given  by  Onujihrius.  He  thinks  the 
tale  arose  from  the  fact  that  Pope  John  the  Twelfth  had  many  concubines, 
and  among  them  Joan.  He  was  made  pope  at  the  age  of  twelve  years,  and 
was  so  governed  in  all  he  did  by  '  dame  Joan,  that  perhaps  in  derision 
the  name  of  this  woman  was  given  to  her  obsequious  paramour.  And 
hence,  says  the  learned  apologist  for  the  pope,  '  some  idle  head  or  other 
invented  'this  tale  of  her.'  This,  then,  is  the  version  of  a  learned  Romish 
historian.  A  licentious  boy  of  twelve  years  old,  who  has  '  many  concu- 
bines,' is  so  entirely  under  the  dictation  of  one  of  them  in  particular,  as 
that  he  is  called  by  her  name  !  All  that  he  did  being  known  to  be  done 
by  the  dictation  of  '  a  concubine'  named  '  Joan,'  he  is  called  '  Pope 
Joan!'  A  vast  improvement  this!  No  doubt  Dr.  Wainwright  and  his 
note-writer  will  think  that  the  succession  is  quite  safe  coming  through 
'  John  the  Twelfth,'  though  it  would  be  somewhat  doubtful  had  it  really 
come  through  '  Joan,'  though,  for  our  part,  if  the  history  of  Joan  were 
well  authenticated,  we  should  think  her  ftir  the  more  competent  of  the  two. 

"  We  have  had  two  objects  in  view  in  this  discussion.  The  first  is  that  we 
may  show  how  little  authority  is  due  to  the  Romish  chronicles  for  several 


492 

centurios ;  and  the  second,  to  put  the  case  of  tlie  '  ft-ii'sale  pope'  upon  its 
true  basis  before  our  readers.  Having  said  all  that  is  necessary  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  these  purposes,  we  now  leave  the  subject." 


APPENDIX  F. 


The  Petition  of  the  Protestant  Parliament  of  Enpland  on  the  drath  of 
£Jiiiuard  VI.  to  Queen  Mary.^  for  the  recaiiciliation  of  the  kinydom  to 
the  See  of  Rome  ;  and  the  counter  petition  of  the  same  Parliament  to 
Elizabeth.,  on  the  death  of  Mary,  for  the  restoration  of  Protestantism. 

[The  following  acts  of  the  English  Parliament,  under  Mary  and  Elizabeth, 
are  taken  from  "  Cobbett's  Legacy  to  Parsons,"  etc.,  in  "  Six  Letters,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Church-parsons  in  general,  including  the  Cathedral  and 
College  Clergy  and  the  Bishops,  with  a  dedication  to  Blomfield,  Bishop  of 
London."  Having  spoken  of  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  under  Henry  and 
Edw'^ard,  he  proceeds  : — ] 

This  church-making  king  died  at  the  end  of  about  seven  years,  and  was 
succeeded  on  the  throne  by  his  sister  Mary,  who  was  a  Catliolic  ;  and  who, 
proceeding  upon  the  settled  constitution  and  laws  of  the  country,  resolved 
upon  restoring  the  Catholic  religion.  The  Common  Prayei--Book  aristoc- 
racy, exceedingly  alarmed  at  this  prospect;  not  so  much  alarmed,  however, 
for  the  almost  certain  loss  of  the  Common  Prayer-Book  and  the  new  Church, 
as  for  the  poysible,  and  even  probable,  loss  of  that  immense  mass  of  pro- 
perty of  the  Church  and  the  poor,  which  they  had  got  into  their  possession, 
by  the  means  before  mentioned,  entered  into  a  negotiation  Avtth  the  queen, 
agreeing  to  give  up  their  Common  Prayer-Booh  and  their  Protestant  reli- 
gion ;  agreeing  to  bring  back  the  Catholic  religion  into  the  country,  and  to 
punish  parsons  for  not  being  Catholics,  as  they  had  punished  them  before 
for  not  being  Protestants  :  aifreeino-  to  confess  themselves  to  have  been 
schismatics ;  agreeing  to  receive  absolution  from  -the  Pope,  for  having  re- 
belled against  his  authority  ;  agreeing  to  reinstate  him  in  all  his  power  in 
England,  which  they  before  designated  as  abominable  usurpations;  agreeing, 
above  all  things,  to  abrogate  as  schismatical  that  very  Common  Prayer- 
Book  which  they  had  before  declared,  in  the  preamble  to  an  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment, to  have  been  composed  by  the  "  aid  of  the  Holy  Gfiost,"  and 
which  was,  they  said,  made  "  to  the  Iwnor  of  God  ;"  agreeing  to  all  this, 
if  the  queen  would  obtain  the  consent  of  the  Pope,  and  give  her  own  con- 
sent, to  suffer  them  to  keep  the  immense  masses  of  property  in  land  and  in 
tithes,  which,  during  the  two  preceding  reigns,  they  had  grasped  from  the 
Church  and  the  poor  !     This  is  something  so  monstrous,  that  I  would  ven- 


498 

ture  to  state  it  upon  no  authority  short  of  that  of  an  Act  of  Parliament  ; 
and  yet  it  is  by  no  means  tlie  worst  that  we  have  to  behold  on  tin;  part  of 
these  men  who  called  themselves  noblemen  and  gentlemen,  and  whose  de- 
scendants coolly  assume  the  same  appellations  ! 

As  a  sort  of  prelude  to  the  monstrous  acts  which  they  were  about  to 
perform,  they  passed,  almost  as  soon  as  Mary  was  upon  the  throne,  an  Act 
to  repeal  the  lohole  of  the  famous  Act,  making  the  Common  Prager-Bnok  ; 
and  that  too  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  conti-ary  to  tlie  ti-iie  i-elioion  ; 
though  they  alleged  that  they  had  been  assisted  by  the  Holy  Ghoxt,  in  the 
making  of  that  Book  of  Common  Prayer  !  Tiiey  abolished  all  the  penil- 
ties  for  persons  acting  plays,  singing  songs,  ridiculing  the  new  religion;  tlxn'' 
repealed  the  law  for  preventing  images  being  put  up  in  churches  ;  they  re- 
pealed the  law  permitting  priests  to*  marry  ;  they  swept  away,  by  this  .Act 
of  Parliament,  every  vestige  of  the  Protestant  Church  service,  and  rein- 
stated the  service  of  the  Catholic  religion ;  brought  in  again  the  singing  of 
the  mass  in  all  the  churches  and  chapels;  and  this  too  upon  the  express 
ground  that  they  had  been  for  years  wandering  in  error  and  in  schism  ; 
though,  never  forget,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  had  assisted  them  in  makinrf 
their  Common  Prayer-Book  ! 

This,  however,  was  only  a  beginning.  Having  made  their  bargain  to  keep 
the  lands  and  the  tithes,  which  they  had  taken  from  tlie  Church  and  the  poor, 
they  petitioned  the  queen  to  intercede  with  the  pope  to  forgive  them  for  all 
the  sins  which  they  had  committed  against  him  and  against  the  Catholic  faith  ; 
to  "  assoil,  discharge,  and  deliver  them  from  all  ecclesiastical  excommuni- 
cations, interdictions,  and  censures,  hanging  over  their  heads,  for  their  faults 
during  the  schism  :  and  to  take  them  again  into  the  bosom  of  holy  Church." 
The  queen,  detesting  the  monsters  in  her  heart,  no  doubt,  con^^ented,  and 
obtained  the  pope's  consent  to  let  them  keep  the  lands  and  the  tithes ;  not 
because  it  was  right,  but  because  it  was  thought  to  be  an  evil  less  than  that 
of  a  civil  war,  which  might  have  been  produced  by  a  rejection  of  the  terms 
of  this  agreement.  Having  obtained  the  security.  Cardinal  Pole  was  sent 
over  by  the  pope,  as  his  legate,  authorized  to  give  them  pardon  and  abso- 
lution. To  work  they  went,  instantly,  to  repeal  every  act  made  after  Henrv 
the  Eighth  began  his  rebellion  against  the  pope ;  every  act  at  all  trenchincr 
on  the  Papal  authority ;  but  taking  special  care  in  the  same  act  to  secure 
to  themselves  the  safe  possession  of  all  the  property  of  the  Church  and  the 
poor,  which  they  had  grasped,  during  the  reigns  of  Henry  and  of  Edward. 
Though  I  say  I  am  referring  to  acts  of  Parliament,  and  though  the  reader 
will,  upon  reflection,  know  that  I  should  not  dare  to  state  the  substance  of 
those  acts  untruly,  still  I  cannot  give  an  adequate  idea  of  the  character  of 
these  Protestant  church-makers,  without  taking  their  own  words,  as  I  find 
them  in  the  preamble  to  this  act,  1st  and  2d  Mary,  chapter  8  ;  and  when 
I  read  it,  I  always  wonder  that  some  scheme  or  other  has  not  been  invented 
for  the  obliterating,  for  the  erasing  from  the  statute-book  words  so  dishonor- 
able, so  indelibly  infamous. 

"  Whereas,  since  the  twentieth  year  of  King  Henry  the  Eighth  of  famous 
memory,  father  unto  your  majesty  our  most  natural  sovereign,  and  gia- 
cious  lady  and  queen,  much  false  and  erroneous  doctrine  hath  been  taught, 
preached  and  written,  partly  by  divers  the  natural  born  subjects  of  this  realm, 
and  partly  being  brought  in  hither  from  sundry  other  foreign  countiies,  hath 
been  sown  and  spread  abroad  within  the  same  :  By  reason  whereof,  as  well 


^ '  494 

the  spirituality  as  the  temporality  of  your  highnesses  realms  and  dominions 
have  swerved  from  the  obedience  of  the  see  apostolic,  and  declined  from 
the  unity  of  Christ's  Church,  and  so  have  continued,  until  such  time  as 
your  majesty  being  first  raised  up  by  God,  and  set  in  the  seat  royal  over 
us,  and  then  by  his  divine  and  gracious  Providence  knit  in  marriage  with 
the  most  noble  and  virtuous  prince  the  king  our  sovereign  lord  your  hus- 
band, the  pope's  holiness  and  the  see  apostolic  sent  hither  unto  your  majes- 
ties (as  unto  persons  undefiled,  and  b}''  God's  goodness  preserved  from  the 
common  infection  aforesaid)  and  to  the  whole  realm,  the  most  reverend 
father  in  God  the  Lord  Cardinal  Pole,  Legate  de  latere,  to  call  us  home 
again  into  the  right  way  from  whence  we  have  all  this  long  while  wandered 
and  strayed  abroad  ;  and  we,  after  sundry  long  and  grievous  plagues  and 
calamities,  seeing  by  the  goodness  of  God  our  own  errors,  have  acknowl- 
edged the  same  unto  the  said  most  reverend  father,  and  by  him  have  been 
and  are  the  rather  at  the  contemplation  of  your  majesties,  received  and  em- 
braced unto  the  unity  and  bosom  of  Christ's  Church,  and  upon  our  hum- 
ble submission  and  promise  made  for  a  declaration  of  our  repentance,  to 
repeal  and  abrogate  such  acts  and  statutes  as  had  been  made  in  parliament 
since  the  said  twentieth  year  of  the  said  King  Henry  the  Eighth,  against 
the  supremacy  of  the  see  apostolic,  as  in  our  submission  exhibited  to  the 
said  most  reverend  father  in  God  by  your  majesties  appeareth  :  The  tenor 
whereof  ensueth. 

"  We  the  lords  spiritual  and  temporal  and  the  commons,  assembled  in 
this  present  Parliament,  representing  the  whole  body  of  the  realm  of  £/n- 
gland,  and  the  dominions  of  the  same,  in  the  name  of  ourselves  particularly, 
and  also  of  the  said  body  universally,  in  this  our  supplication  directed  to 
your  majesties,  with  most  humble  suit,  that  it  may  by  your  graces  inter- 
cession and  mean  be  exhibited  to  the  most  reverend  father  in  God,  the 
Lord  Cardinal  Pole,  Legate,  sent  specially  hither  from  our  most  Holy  Father 
Pope  Julian  the  Third  and  the  See  Apostolic  of  Rome,  do  declare  our- 
selves very  sorry  and  repentant  of  the  schism  and  disobedience  committed 
in  this  realm  and  dominions  aforesaid  against  the  see  apostolic,  either  by 
making,  agreeing,  or  executing  any  laws,  ordinances  or  commandments, 
against  the  supremacy  of  the  said  see,  or  otherwise  doing  or  speaking,  that 
might  impugn  the  same  :  OfFering  ourselves  and  promising  by  this  our  sup- 
plication, that  for  a  token  and  knowledge  of  our  said  repentance,  we  be 
and  shall  be  always  ready,  under  and  with  the  authorities  of  your  majesties, 
to  the  uttermost  of  our  powers,  to  do  that  shall  lie  in  us  for  the  abrogation 
and  repealing  of  the  said  laws  and  ordinances,  in  his  present  parliament, 
as  well  for  ourselves  as  for  the  whole  body  whom  we  represent :  Where- 
upon we  most  humbly  desire  your  majesties,  as  personages  undefiled  in  the 
offense  of  this  body  towards  the  said  see,  which  nevertheless  God  by  his 
Providence  hath  made  subject  to  you,  so  to  set  forth  this  our  humble  suit, 
that  we  may  obtain  from  the  see  apostolic,  by  the  said  most  reverend  father, 
as  well  particularly  and  generally,  absolution,  release  and  discharge  from 
all  danger  of  such  censures  and  sentences,  as  by  the  laws  of  the  Church 
we  be  fallen  into  ;  and  that  we  may  as  children  repentant  be  received  into 
the  bosom  and  unity  of  Christ's  Church,  so  as  this  noble  realm,  with  all 
the  members  thereof,  may  in  this  unity  and  perfect  obedience  to  the  see 
apostolic,  and  popes  for  the  time  being,  serve  God  and  your  majesties,  to 
the  furtherance  and  advancement  of  his  honor  and  glory.     We  are,  at  the 


•rf?* 


*      495 

intercession  of  your  majesties,  by  the  authority  of  our  holy  father  Pope 
Julian  the  Third  and  of  the  see  apostolic,  assoiled,  discharged  and  delivered 
from  the  excommunications,  interdictions,  and  other  censures  ecclesiastical, 
which  hath  hani^ed  over  our  heads,  for  our  said  defaults,  since  the  time  of 
the  said  schism  mentioned  in  our  supplication  :  It  may  now  like  your  ma- 
jesties, that  for  the  accomplishment  of  our  promise  made  in  the  said  sup- 
plication, that  is,  to  repeal  all  the  laws  and  statutes  made  contrary  to  the 
said  supremacy  and  see  apostolic,  during  the  said  schism,  the  which  is  to 
be  understood  since  the  twentieth  year  of  the  reign  of  the  said  late  King 
Henry  the  Eighth,  and  so  the  said  lord  legate  doth  accept  and  recognize  the 
same." 

After  this  most  solemn  recantation  ;  after  this  appeal  to  God  for  the 
sincerity  of  iheir  repentance,  they  proceeded  to  enact  the  repeal  of  every 
act  that  had  ever  been  passed  to  infringe  upon  the  supremacy  or  authority 
of  the  pope  ;  they,  in  the  most  express  and  solemn  manner,  enacted  that 
no  king  or  queen  of  England  was  ever,  or  ever  co?tld  be  the  head  of  the 
Church  ;  or  had,  or  ever  could  have,  any  pretension  to  a  right  of  supre- 
macy in  regard  to  the  Church.  But,  in  the  same  Act  of  Pailiament, 
every  sentence  of  which  makes  one  shudder  as  one  reads  it,  they  took  spe- 
cial care,  while  they  acknowledge  the  act  of  plunder,  to  secure  to  them- 
selves, bv  clause  upon  clause,  the  uninterrupted  possession  of  that  third 
part  of  the  property  of  the  kingdom,  which  they  had  grasped  from  the 
Church  and  the  poor  ! 

But,  at  any  rate,  they  were  now  Catholics  again  ;  they  were  once  more 
Roman  Catholics.  They  had  been  born  and  bred  Roman  Catholics.  They 
had  apostatized,  and  protested  against  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  possession  of  a  large  part  of  the  property  of  the  king- 
dom ;  but  having  now  made  safe  the  possession  of  this  enormous  mass  of 
plunder ;  and  having,  nevertheless,  been  absolved  of  their  sins,  and  taken 
back  into  the  bosora  of  the  Church,  they,  surely,  now  remained  Roman 
Catholics  to  the  end  of  their  days  ?  Not  they,  indeed  ;  for  the  moment 
the  death  of  Mary  took  place,  which  was  in  1558,  that  is  to  say,  at  the 
end  of  6ve  years,  they  undid  all  that  they  had  done  in  the  time  of  Mary  ; 
apostatized  again,  and  declared  their  abhorrence  of  that  Church,  into  the 
bosom  of  Avhich  they  had  so  recently  thanked  the  queen  for  having  inter- 
ceded with  the  pope  to  receive  them  ! 

This  would  not,  and  could  not,  be  believed,  if  it  were  not  upon  record 
in  the  statute-book,  which  cannot  lie,  in  this  case  :  and  which  contains  in 
this  case,  too,  the  laiu  as  we  have  now  to  obey  it.  Elizabeth,  the  immediate 
successor  of  Mary,  was  a  Catholic  herself,  by  profession  and  public  wor- 
ship ;  she  was  crowned  by  a  Catholic  bishop  ;  her  manifest  intention,  at 
first,  was  to  maintain  the  Catholic  religion  ;  but  she  was  a  bastard,  ac- 
cording to  the  law,  she  having  been  born  of  another  woman,  while  her 
father's  first  wife  was  still  alive ;  besides  which,  an  act  had  been  passed  in 
her  father's  lifetime,  declaring  her  to  be  a  bastard.  All  this  would  not 
have  signi6ed  much  ;  but  the  pope  would  not  recognize  her  legitimacy ; 
and  of  course  would  not  acknowledge  her  right  to  reign  as  Queen  of  En- 
gland. Finding  this,  she  resolved  to  be  Protestant;  and  resolved  that  her 
people  should  be  Protestant,  too.  The  very  first  act  of  Parliament  of  her 
reign,  therefore,  swept  away  the  whole  that  had  been  done  during  the 
reign  of  Mary;  and  the  act  (1st  of  Ehzabeth,  chapter   1)  repealed  the 


496 

whole  of  the  act  of  which  I  liave  just  quoted  the  memorable  preamble,  ex- 
cept only  those  parts  of  it  which  secured  the  plunder  of  the  Church  and 
the  poor  to  those  who  had  got  possession  of  it ;  and  .those  same  men,  wlio 
had  so  recently  received  absolution  from  the  pope  for  having  acknowledged 
the  ecclesiastical  supremacy  to  be  in  the  king,  now  enacted,  that  that  su- 
premacy had  always  belonged  to  the  king;  that  it  never  had  belonged  to 
the  pope  ;  that  the  pope  had  usurped  it ;  and  they  even  went  so  far  now 
as  to  exact  an  oath  from  every  Englishman,  if  the  Queen  chose  to  require 
it,  declaring  a  firm  belief  in  this  supremacy  of  the  queen  !  The  oath  (in  u.se 
to  this  day)  begins  thus,  "  I,  A.  B.,  do  utterly  declare  and  testify  in  my  con- 
science, that  the  queen's  highness  is  the  only  supreme  governor  of  this 
realm,  as  well  in  all  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  things,  or  causes,  as  tem- 
poral !"  An  oath  was  now  to  come  to  re-assert  that  which  these  very  men 
had  supplicated  pardon  and  absolution  from  the  pope,  aud  prayed  for  for- 
giveness to  God,  for  having  asserted  before  ! 


497 


INDEX  OF  GREEK  TEXTS,  WORDS,  Etc. 


BaTTTi^ovreg,  Koi  didaoKOVrsg  (Matt.  28  :  19,  20),         ...  92 

"EdoKEv  KXiJQovg  avrojv,      .......     (note)  162 

"Elg  dvdpa  reXeiov  (Eph.  4  :  11,   12),  ......  140 

"Ew^-  TTjg  avvreXeidg  rov  dcCJvog  (Matt.  28  :  20),        .         .         .  140 

'E7na7]iJ.oL  ev  rolg  aTTOOToXoig  (Rora.  16:7),.         .         ,         .  127 
E()_^fra<  ovv  6  'h](7ovg  Kal  Xan(3dvei  rov  dprov,  koI  diduacv  avrolg, 

Kol  TO  dxjjaQtov  dfioicdg  (John  21:13),         .         .         .         .  12I 

MdXLara  oi  KoniojVTeg,         ■•■•...     (note)  161 

MadrjTEvaa-e  Tcdvra  rd  edvi]  (Matt.  28  :   19,  20),       ...  92 

'O  dvr''  dXXov,    ..••••'...  477 

'Oi  jxdXiora  KOTTioyvreg,        •••....     (note)  161 

XeiQOTOveidelg  vtto  tcov  eKKXrjOtoJv  (2  Cor.  8  :  19,  23),      .         .  162 

lificov  'Iwm,  dya-rrdg  jite  -nXeiov  tovtuv  ;  (John  21   :  15-17,)       .  121 

Iv  el  Ue-Qog,  kol  em  ravrTj  Txerga  (Matt.  17  :   18,  19),     .         .  118 


AyyeAo^,  126,   130. 

Ar/yeXog  eKKXrjoiag,  130. 

AvdvTTarog,  477. 

AvTi,  476. 

Avri(3aaiXevg,  477. 

AvTi  Hpcodov,  477. 

AvTi;^piCTTO^,  477. 

Atto  ttoAAwv,  163. 

ATiOa-oXoi,  99,  107,  128,  129,- 131, 

132. 
AnooToXog,    100,    107,    125,    126, 

127,  130,  131,  132,  139,  173. 
Am,  276-278. 
AtdKOVov,  100. 
Aidiiovoi,  102. 
AidKOVog,  126. 
Aiaraaaonai,  279. 
AiddoKaXoL,  155. 
AiddaKaXog^  126. 
ALera^afiev,  279. 
Aiera^aro,  279. 
"EfiaXov,  162  [note). 
E~iaK07T7j,  422. 

EmoKOTTOi,  102,  107,  281,  324. 
EmoKOTTog,    125,    151,     159,    166, 

.  275,  409. 
'E'maKOTTOVvreg,  418. 
'E.vayyeXiarov,  99,  152. 
'iUuKiag,  140. 
'legevg,  275. 

32 


'legog,  275. 

KadoXiKog,  434. 

KXrjQog,  121  [note),  122. 

Aoyog  yvdjaeoog,  109. 

Aoyog  ao(j)i.ag,  109. 

M£t',  276-278. 

Mexpi,  140,  187. 

JTopadocreif,  62. 

Uerpa,  118,  119. 

nerpo^-,  116,  118. 

Ilo(.fj,rjv,  126. 

TloLfXEvag,  155. 

II()e(7/3i;^,  275. 

np£(T/3t;Tepo(,    99,    102,    122,    151, 

159,  162,  163,  277,  281,  324. 
Jlp^ofivTepcov,  275. 
Upeal3vTepog,  122,  125,    126,   159, 

166,  275,  409,  413. 
UQoeoTOJTeg  TTQeofSyrepoi,  413. 
'n.po(f>TjTag,  154. 
Upoipfjrrjg,  126. 
Tovro)v,  121. 
'TTTorvrroiGLV,  64. 
Xetporovetr',  163  {note). 
XeiQOTOvetado),  163. 
XeiQOTOvTjaai,  163. 
XeiQorovyaavreg    (Acts    14    :    21, 

23),  163. 
XeiqoTOVTjeeig  (2  Cor.  8  :  23),   163. 
■^rj(l>og,  162  [note). 


498 


SCRIPTURAL    INDEX. 


Genesis    1  :  26,  27 174 

3:5 171 

3:  15 174 

6:3 471 

12  :  3 257,385 

14  :  18 143 

28  :  6 143 

48  :  13-20 143 

Exodus  11:13 254 

18  :  1 254 

18  :  14 165 

19:5 90 

20  :  — 473 

Lev.  16:8 135 

16  :  20 144 

26:28 385 

Numb.  12  :  23 143 

23  :  9 254 

27  :  18-23 143 

33  :  47 143 

Deut.    3  :  27 143 

27  :  13 385 

32:  49 143 

34  :  1 143 

Joshua  18  :  10 135 

1  Samuel  12  :  12 174 

12:  12-19 385 

14  :  41,  42 135 


2  Samuel    1  :  20. 
23  :  5.. 


363 
174 


1  Kings  16  :  25 174 

20  :  11 XXX 


1  Chron.  23 
21 
24 


254 
254 
135 


Ezra  2:  61,  62 408 

Psalm  12  :  6 

18:  2,  31 117 


Psalm  19:7 73 

19:8 88 

25  :  14 91 

31  :  11 161 

50  :  16 447 

50:16,17 42 

110  .  3 xxvii 

122  :  3 2.5S 

Prov.    8  :  23 91,  174 

16  :  33 135 

Eccles.  8:11.., xxx 

Isaiah    8  :  20 73 

11  :  11,  12 260 

28  :  16 455 

53  :  10 119 

Jer.    7  :  26 174 

14:  14 103 

23  :  21,  32 103 

27  :  15 103 

Ezek.  20  :  6 254 

Daniel    7  :  1-7 385 

7  :  2,  3,  7 472 

7  :  7-19 339,475 

7  :  7.  11,  19,  21,  23-25 472 

7  :  2i,  25 376 

7  :  25 104,471 

7:27 260 

11  :  36 475 

Hosea    3:4 386 

13  :  11 385 

Jonah  1:7 135 

Matt.    1  :  20 126 

1  :  22 126 

4:  18,  19 : 118 

7:16 4.56 

7  :  17,  18 429 

8:4 275 

8:  14 72,287 

9:  11 126 

9:38 103 


499 


Matt.  10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
10 
11 
12 
13 
13 
13 
13 
13 
15 
15 
16 
IG 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
18 
18 
19 
19 
19 
20 
20 
21 
23 
23 
23 
24 
25 
26 
26 
26 
26 
26 
28 
28 
28 


.98, 


:  2  . . 
:  2-4 

:  6  .. 
:  17  . 


29,30 
4,  5  . . 
24-30 
38  ... 
25-29 
47  ... 
47-52 

3 

9 

13-18 
13-19 
15  — 
15-19 

17,  18 
18  ..., 

18.  19 
17'... 
20  ... 

6 

13  ... 


.72, 


28 ■ 

20-23  . . . 

26 

23 

8,  9 

9 

12 

24 

32 

1-3 

20 

31 

31-35,  51 

69-75 

17 

18 

19,  20  . . . 


,137,  173, 


.141,487 

117 

56 

95 

261 

....  144 
261 
103 

126 

125 

285 

43G 

104 

.xxix,  104,  476 

126 

195 

94 

126 

134 
134 
58 
215 
195 


.116, 
115, 


.187, 
..92, 


Mark 


14 

14,  15  . 

15 

16-19. 

7 

7-13  . . 

8 

13 

2 

34 

38,40. 
16.... 
42-45. 

21 

1 


109, 

.98,203, 


15 

17 

17,  18 

17,  18,  20. 

18 

19 


110 
251 
110 

109 

110 

98,  110,205 

72 

72 

115 

n:^ 

98 

l-M 

103 

476 

125 

,  25s 

76 

76 

113 

145 

76 


.88. 


110  Luke  1:5 275 

109      2:1 339 

109  .  2  :  8,  15 126 

110  2  :  19,  20 126 

194      3  :  16 473 

1261      3  :46 126 

260      4  :  18 217 

275      4  :  40 144 

91      6  :  13 109,  126.  251 

258      6  :  13-16 109 

456      7:3 125 

456      9:1 110 

103  9:1-6 205 

72      9:2 110 

104  9:49,50 98 

455      9  :  52 120 

115      9  :  59,  60 98 

103      10:  1.  2 98 

112     10:  18 469 

112     12:57 75 

15  :  25 125 

16  :.29 73 

18  :  18 126 

18  :  20 90 

19  :  22 79 

20  :  40 162 

21  :  24 261 

22:  3 Ill 

22  :  26-30 124 

22:  30 136 

24:  49 112 

24  :  50 144 

John  1:3 289 

1  :  13 268 

1  :42 116 

2  :  5,  9 126 

2:  19 lis 

3  :  2 126,  195 

3  :  .34 108,215 

3  :  34,  35 102 

4:  1,  2 110 

5  :  30 114,  1S7 

5:  31 58,  80,  205 

5:39,56 73 

5:41-44 103 

6  :  32,  33 94 

6:63 90 

7;  24 456 

8:9 125 

8  :  14 469 

8:  39 131 

8:44 174 

8:47 88 

10  :  1.  2 103 

10  :  2,'  11,  12,  14,  16 126 

10  :  5 105 

11  :42 339 

12:48 ^8 

13  :  16 126 

13  :  26 )11 

14  :  1-4 94 

14  :  10 94 

15:  16 102,251 

16:1-7 94 


500 


John  ]  6  : 
17  : 
17  : 
19: 
20: 
20: 
?0: 
20: 
20: 
21  : 
21  : 
21  : 
21  : 
21  : 
21  : 
21  : 
21  : 
21  : 
21  : 


94 

.xxvii,  91 

93 

....  171 
....  171 
187 


21,24 ISf) 

22 102 

23 136 

1-3 115 

2 86 

3 134 

7 171 

7,  20 116 

l.-j-n 115,  117 

19-23 112 

21 86 

22 86,287 

23 86,  98 


Acts 


1-3 

1-6 

3-8 98,109, 

4,5 136, 

4-8 

6 

7-11 


13,  16. 
15,  16, 
15-26. 
22 ... . 
23,  24. 
:  24 . . . . 


.136, 
.136, 


26 133,  137,. 162, 

28,  and  vv.  15,  16 


1-4 

5,  9-11 

11 

14 

14-36.. 


30 

33 

41,42 
43 


1-11,  12-16 

6 

17 

21 


.89, 


16... 
30... 
36... 
1-11. 
12... 
15... 
24... 
1-6.. 


3 

6 

14-17. 


.114,  122,  145, 


113 

99 
139 
205 
112 
110 
136 
136 
272 
272 

99 
251 
272 
137 
272 
162 
102 
136 
113 
136 
135 

63 
174 
385 
136 
455 
113 
113 
145 

76 
138 
173 
125 
113 
145 
100 
114 
145 
145 
275 
162 
135 
102 
182 
205 


Acts  8:18,19 177 

9  :  1-9,  and  15,  16 138 

9  :  1-M,  15,  16 149 

9:  1-18 131 

9  :  10 137 

9  :  12 137 

9  :  12,  17,  18 137 

9  :  17 144 

9:18 98 

9  :  20.  22 131 

9  :  27',  29 131 

9  :  27,  and  vv.  13,  26 127 

10:  32 120 

10  :  34,  39,  42,  44-48 120 

10:34-43 63 

10:34,35 120 

10  :  44 114 

10:47 92 

11  :  1-18 134 

11  :5 113 

11  :  14 120 

11:22 99 

12  :  1-18. 12-3 

12  :  12-25 100 

12  :  25 100 

13  :  1  126,  138 

13  :  1-3,  99, 131, 133. 138,  149, 154,  273 

13  :  1-5 .' 100 

13  :  11 114 

13  :  13 100 

13  :  19 135 

13:39 91 

14:  1-26 133 

14:  13 275 

14:  14 99,  131 

14  :  21-23 151,  103 

14:  16 385 

14  :  23  and  21 99,  251,  279 

14:  26 138,  149 

15  :  1 201 

15  :  1-5 19 

15:  1-21 123 

15:  1,24 179 

15  :  2 125 

15  :  10 105 

15:  22 162 

15:  30-32 100 

15  :  37-39 100 

15  :  37-40 128 

16:  1-3 99,  149,  150 

16  :  2,  3 162 

16  :  9-12 166 

16:  J6 155 

17  :  11 56 

18  :  24 127 

IS  :  24-28 100 

19:  1-5  and  5-7 99 

19  :  1-7 205 

19  :  0 114 

19  :  0.  7 145 

19  :  12 145 

19  :  29 100 

20:4 1 00 

20  :  17 125,  15] 

20  :  17-28 04,  125,  154 


601 


Acts  20  :  23 ISS  1 

20  :  28 122,  126 

20  :  29,  30 101,  175,  475 

20  :  30 176 

21:8 99 

24  :  23 279 

25  :  26 161 

26  :  3 161 

27  :  2 100 

28  :  18 102 


Romans 


10 
10 
10 

11 
11 
11 
11 
11 

13 
13 

14 
14 
14 
15 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 
16 


:  23 473 

:  20 126 

:  25-29   xxxiv 

:  28,  29 179 

-.20 91 

:  16 90 

:  1 xxxiv 

:  17 90 

:  19 90 

:1 91 

:  16 •..     91 

:  6 91,456 

:4 91,  169 

:  17 79 

:  18 141,  187 

:8 17 

:11,  21 90 

:  13 98,  126 

:  25 168 

:  28 

:4 

:  22 

:  5 


23. 


260 

■'. 126 

91 

56 

126 

90 

IS,  19 114 

1 100 

3 100 

4 127 

5,  7,  9 100 

6,  15 101 

7 127 

8,  9 101 

10 100 

10,  11 101 

12 101 

13 101 

14,  15 101 

18 104,  239 

21 162 


1  Corinth.  ]  :  l . . , 
1:2... 
1:6... 
1  :  11.. 

1  :  29 . . 
2:6... 

2  :  13. . 
2  :  14. . 
3:—.. 
3:  1-4. 
3:3... 


. .  130 

. .  455 

, .  127 

, .  194 

.  97 

.  461 

.  73 

.  56 
.xxvii 

.  127 

.  194 


3:4 xxxi 

3  :  5,  9 1281 


Corinth.  .1:10 98 

3:16 95 

3  :  16,  17 475 

4:6 128 

4  :  6,  7,  9 128 

4  :  15 287 

5  :4,  5 114 

5  :  13 456 

5  :  26 155 

5:40 155 

6:1 56 

6:  10 475 

7  :  15 xxxi 

7  :  17 279 

9:2 147 

10:4 91 

10  :  12 XXX 

10:16,17 94 

11:2 62 

11:29 95 

12:— xxvii,  108,  109 

12  :  4-25 103 

12  :  4,  6,  28 79 

12:  7 408 

12  :  12-27 • 108 

12:  17,  18,25 xxxii 

12:  19 xxxi 

12:28 96,436 

12:  28.  29 126 

14:3 154 

14  :  27,  28 155 

14:  29,  32,  37 126 

14  :  32 155 

15  :  1-11 63 

15:5 135 

15:8 98,  109,  137 

15:  10 109,  287 

15  :  18 140 

15  :  20,  23   91 

15  :  38 376 

15  :  41 96 

16  :  15, 16 162 

Corinth.  1  :  12 .52 

1  :  24 56,  172,450 

2  :  17 52 

3  ;  — xxxiii 

3:  6 96,  126 

3  :  6,  16,  17 133 

3:7-9 90 

3  :  10 91 

4:7 xxxiii,  97 

5:5 80 

5:7 91 

5  :  19 97 

5:21 91 

6:  16 475 

7  :  1,  7 287 

8:  19,  23 162 

8:  23 100,  129,  162 

11  :  5 287 

11  :  10 176 

11  :  13 104,  127,  176 

11  :  13-15 xxviii,  471 

11  :  14,  15 176 


502 


P.Corinth.  11  :  15 126 

11  :  IS 176 

11  :  23 104,  126 

11  :28 287 

12:4-11 96 

12:7 126 

12:  12 113 


13  :5. 


75 


Galat. 


— 123 

1 181 

1,2 129 

1,  11,  12,  17 137 

1,  12 98,  109 

14 74 

9 272 

11-14 123 

11-15 134 


16 

17 

5,  6,19. 


10. 
12. 
13. 
16. 
24. 
4.. 
10. 


19 

126 

285 

90 

90 

91 

257 

91 

89 

87 


24 xxxiv,  174,  260 

1 xxxiv 

6 19 

11,  12   181 

22 102 

22,  23 102 

12 4.56 

15 19,  95,  456 

6  :  15,  V.  6 179 

6:  10 161 

Ephes.  1:9 88 

1:5,13 94 

1  :  22 XXX,  91 

1:22,23 55 

2  :  19,  20 2.59 

2:19-21 56 

2  :  20 72,  SO,  98,  117,  260,  455 

3:4 88 

3:7 126 

4:  3 93,166,  175 

4:4,  13 xxvii 

4  :  5 xxvii 

4:  8-11 55,  96 

4:8-13 79 

4:  11   126,436 

4:  11,  12 187 

4:11-13 98 

4:12 79 

4:  12,  13 93,  96,  152 

4:  13 187 

4:  14 103 

4:  15 91 

4:30 94 

5:  30 92,  95 

5:32 55 


Ephes.  6:18 171 

6:21 126 

Philipp.  1:1 126,  151 

1  :  5 167 

1  :  15-19 xlviii 

1  :  16 167 

2:  25 100,  133 

4  :  3 162,  260 

Coloss.  1  :  7 101,  162 

1  :  7,  23,  25 126 

1  :  9-20 469 

1  :  12 121 

1  :  16 174 

1:18 91 

1:24 91 

2  :  10 xxvii 

2  :  19 55 

2  :  21 450 

3:3 91 

4:7 126 

4:  7-9 101 

4  :  10 100,  162 

4:  11    101 

4:  12 101 

4  :  14 101 

4  :  17 101 

4:29 xxvii 

1  Thess.  1:1 162 

2:18 21 

3:2 126 

5:3 XXX 

5  :  13 J  28 

5  :  21 75 

2  Thess.  2  :  3,  4 175 

2:3-8 -171 

2:4 173 

2:7 173 

2  :  9,  10 176 

2  :  9-11 471 

2  :  15 62 

3  :  6 10.5,  456 

1  Tim.  1:1 287 

1:3 152.  153 

1  :  13,  14 ■    63 

1  :20 114 

2:5 226 

2:7 126.  251 

3  :  1,2,  3,  7 ■  102 

3  :  1-7 102 

3:2 103,  126,  1-57 

3:6 lO.j 

3  :8,  9 1.57 

3  :  8,  12 126 

3  :  8-13 102 

3  :  15 475 

3  :  16 173 

4:1-3 176 

4:2 88 

4:6 126 


503 


1  Tim.  4  :  10 161 

4  :  11 152 

4:  12 150 

4  :  14 99,  149,  150,  152,  277 

4  :  16 103 

5:1 125 

5:  S IGl 

5  :  17 151,282 

5  :  19 125,  152 

5  :  20 152 

5:  21 4G9 

6  :  1 XXX,  103 

6:3 105 

6:5 45C 

6:  20 62,  63 

2  Tim.  1  :  6 146.277 

1  :  6,  7 114,  149 

1:7 277 

1  :  11 126 

2:1 287 

2:2 152 

2:  15 103 

3.1 xxviii 

3  :  1-13 104 

3:2 151 

3  :  5 236,456 

3:15 

3:15-17 73 

3  :  16 88,  134 

3  :  16,  17 83 

3:17 79 

4:2 152 

4:  3 xxviii,  126 

4:5 99,  152 

4:  6,  7,  8 154 

4:  10 101 

4:  11 100 

4  :  12 100 

4:  13 161,  171 

4:  19 100 

4:  19-21 101 

4:  20 100 

5:1 484 

5:  3-5 105 

5:7 146 

Titus  1:4 287 

1:4-9 102 

1  :5 125,  152,  153,251 

1:  5.  7 125 

1  -.i. 126,  151 

1:5-9 102 

1:6-9 157 


Heb. 


2  : 


7... 
12.. 
15.. 
6... 
14.. 
1... 
1-3. 


.251. 


1  :  12, 
2:1. 

2  :  15 

3  :  10. 
3  :  12 
3:  13. 


126 
103 
152 
56 
100 
100 


4 251,254, 

4,5 

6,  10 

12 


1,2 


.142, 


6,  14  . 
11-21. 
14 


15,  V.  3 

16 

17 


21  ... 
24.... 
24-26. 
25 


.196, 


3.. 
8:  4.. 

8  :  13. 

9  :  24. 


.06,  195, 


9  : 
10  : 
10  : 
10: 
12: 
13: 
13: 
13  : 
13  : 

James  1  : 
1  : 
1  : 
3  : 
3: 
5: 

1  Peter  1 
1 
1 
2 
2 
2 
3 


26.... 
11-14. 
18.... 

21 

24 

12.... 


.200, 


17 

20 

7,  17,  24 


175 
174 
127 
196 
171 
174 
475 
196 
275 
196 
257 
200 
200 
126 
243 
275 
257 
257 
200 
200 
200 
200 
200 
275 
200 
196 
257 
196 
196 
260 
196 
196 
200 
201 
475 
89 
196 
417 
126 
165 


5 56 

21 96 

27 460 

1 xxxi,  126 

11 429 

14 12.') 


:  1  .. 
:  10  . 
:25  . 
:5.. 
:25.. 
:  6  .. 
:  21  . 
:  1  .. 
:  1-4 


12.-? 
56 


.164,  171.201,275, 
126, 


5:3 


5:  13 


475 
151 
455 
93 
287 
172 

151 

...105.  121,  162,  172 

125 

102 


.123.  166. 
122. 


Philem.  v.  1 287! 

23 101 

24 100,  101 


2  Peter  1 
1 


1  . 

15 


12.'i 
123 


i* 


504 


2  Peter  1:16 364 

1  :  18-21 83 

1  :  21 87 

2:  1 104,  176 

2:5 80,461 

3:2 123 

1  John  2  :  18 476 

4  :  6 xxvii 

2  John,  V.  1 101 

3  John,  vv  1,8 101 

"  1,  9 101 

"  5 177 

"  5,8 177 

"  9 xxxii,  104,  162,  173,  328 

"  9,  10 101 

"  10 xxxii 

"  12 101 

Jude,  V.  3 56,  79,  376 

"  6 469 

"  16 xxxii 

"20 102 

"24 53 

Rev.  1:6 164 


Rev.  1  :  6-10 275 

1  :  n 144 

1  :  20 126,  130 

2  :  1,8,  12,  18 126 

2  :  2 176 

2  :  3 101 

2  :  8-10 130,  281 

2  :  14 261 

2:17 91 

3  :  1,  5,7,  14 126 

5:6 91 

7  :  14 377 

12  :  1 472 

12  :  2 472 

12:  3 472 

13  :  1 472 

13:1,2 472 

13  :  11 472 

13  :  11,  12 472 

14:4 91 

16:  6 130 

17  :  2 376 

17:5 75 

18  :4 51,456 

19  :  19 377 

20  :  6 275 

21  :  14 125 

22  :  18,  19 78 


INDEX    OF    AUTHORITIES. 


A 


Abbott  against  Church  Forsakers,  400. 
Adrian.     Vit.  Rom.  Pont.     Bulla  Adriani, 

222. 
Alexander  III.     Spons  et  Mat.  c.  non  est, 

222. 
Alexander  III.     De  Decimus  C.  Exparte, 

etc.,  222. 
Alexander  IV.      Sixt.  Decret.  c.  4,  Glossa, 

223. 
Alexander's  Anglo-Catholicism,  quoted,  64, 

72. 
Amer.  and  For.  Christian  Union,  488. 
An  Address,  by  Rev.  S.  F.  Jarvis,  D.D., 

LL.D.,  etc.,  237,  238. 
An  Abridg.  of  Chris.  Doc,  473. 
Antoninus,  Sutnma  Majoris,  pars  3,  220. 
Archbishop  Potter,  on  Church  Government. 

2.'')2,  272. 
Archbishop    Stiliingfleet's   Origines    Brit., 

339  ;  Irenicum',  420. 
Archbishop  Usher,  4:22. 
Archbishop  Whately's  Kingdom  of  Christ, 

263,  328,  330,  4S6. 


Archbishop  Wake's  Apost.  Fathers,  quoted, 

69. 
Articles,  XXIst  of  the  XXXIX,  Church  of 

England,  50. 


B 


Barronius's  Annals,  296.  297,  298. 
Barrow's  Pope's  Supremacy,  109,  206. 
Bede,  (the  Venerable.)  340,  342,  343,  346, 

348,  350,  364,  308,  369,  474. 
Bellarmine,  Lib.  II.  c.  1,  269,  284,  291. 
Bellarmine's  Notes  on  the  Church,  432, 433, 

439. 
Beza,  De  Eccles.,  etc.,  421. 
Biblical  Repertory  and  Princeton  Review, 

126. 
Bingham's  Antiquities,  249,  327,  330,  410, 

411. 
Bingham's  Orlg.  Ecclesiasticus,  451. 
Blair's  Hist,  of  the  Waldenses,  484. 
Blondell  and  Dalliiis,  vide  Beveregii  Codex 

Can.  Eccles.  Prim.  Vind.  Procur.,  421. 
Bochart.  Abridg.  of  Owen's  Plea,  422. 


505 


Boniface,  Extravag.  de  Majorit.  et  Obed. 

C.  Unam,  223. 
Boniface  Prohem.  c.  Sacrosancta,  223. 
Boniface  Sixt.  Decret.  de  Const,  c.  Licet, 

223. 
Boniface   IV.   Sixt.  Decret.   De   Punit.   et 

Rennis.  c.  5.  Glossa.  223. 
Boniface  VIII.   Extravag.   de   Majorit.   et 

Obed.  c.  Unam  Sanctum,  222. 
Boniface  VIII.  Sixt.  Decret.  c.  Uibi,  223. 
"  Book  of  Common  Prayer,"   quoted,  48, 

266,  427,  447,  448. 

British  Critic,  No.  XLVIII.,  87,  No.  LIX., 
224. 

Burnet's,  Bp.,  History  of  his  own  times,  28. 

Burnet's  History  of  the  Reformation,  29, 
230.  231.  234,  304,  383,  384,  387,  392, 
39.5;  397;  401,  403,  421,  424,  425,  427, 
428,  429. 

Butlers  Catechism,  473. 

Bishop  Beveridge's  Sermons  on  the  Church, 
242,  247. 

Bishop  Beveridge  on  Excellency  of  Com. 
Pr.,  400. 

Bishop  Burgess  of  Maine — "  The  Stranger 
in  the  Church."  247. 

Bishop  Croft's—''  The  Naked  Truth,"  4.50. 

Bishop  Griswold,  on  the  Apostolic  Office: 
etc.,  70,  191,  193,  194,  197,  198.  204 
207;  210,  211,  214,  2]  6,  226,  227,  228, 
242,  247,  249,  250,  274,  275,  278,  279, 
410. 

Bishop  Hick's  Treatise  on  "  Episcopal  Or- 
dination," 190. 

Bishop  Ives's  Sermon,  etc.,  225. 

Bishop  Hobart's  High  Churchman  Vindi- 
cated, 242,  247.  Apol.  for  the  Apost 
Succes.,  191,  275,  276.  Compan.  to  the 
Altar,  228,  238,  239,  278,  279.. 

Bishop  Home's  Diocesan  (Charge,  190. 

Bishop  Hurd  on  the  Prophecies,  476. 

Bishop  Jewel's  Defence  of  the  Apology, 
299,  414. 

Bishop  3IcCoskrey  on  Episcopal  Bishops, 
the  Successors  of  the  Apostles,  etc.,  70, 
133,  134,  185,  186,  191,  197,  198,  214, 
215,  216,  223,  224,  225.  226,  227,  266 

267,  269,  270,  272,  274,  282,  339,  408. 
Bishop  Mcllvaine's  Arg.  for  the  Apostolic 

Succession,  204,211,212,  213,  217,  219, 

220,  243,  248,  262,  2G5,  271,  273,  281, 

329,  330,  408,  410. 
Bishop  of  Sarum's  Vindication,  428. 
Bishop  Smith,  of  Kentucky,  on  the  Position 

of  Episcopalians,  etc.,  24. 
Bishop  Taylor's  (Jeremy)  Vindication  of 

Episcopacy,  97,  204,  207,  242. 
Bishop  White's  Memoirs  of  the  Church,  208. 
Bishop  Wilson's  Private  Thoughts,  190. 


Calvin's  Treatise  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  381. 
Calvin's  Institutes,  421. 
Canon  Law,  116. 


Carey's,  Rev.  H.,  Apost.  Succession  of  the 

Church  of  England,  339. 
Catechism  Council  of  Trent,  444. 
Cans.  2,  Qu.  7,  c.  Beati,  223. 
Chillingworth's  works,  97. 
Christian  Magazine,  198. 
Churton's,  Mr.  E.,  Early  English  Church, 

339,  .341,  345,  349,  350,  351. 
Claude,  Def.  of  the  Ref.,  422. 
Clement  V.,  C.  Romani,  Glos.sa,  223. 
Cobbett's  Legacy  to  Parsons,  383,  384,  388, 

390,  391,  392,  395,  396,  398,  399,  404, 

405,  406. 
Codex  Ecclesia  Africanne,  163. 
Coleman's  Apostol.  and  Primitive  Church, 

164,  396,  397. 
Cone.  Antioch,  c.  19,  163. 
Cone.    Trid.    Sess.,  75,  85,  227,  242,  244, 

Catechism  of,  477. 
"  Confession  of  Faith,"  quoted,  42. 
Convention,    the    General,   of  the   P.   E. 

Church,  1850,  16. 
C.   Significasti ;  Glossa.     Bap.  de  Sumcas, 

222. 
Cox,  Rev.  S.  H.,  D.D.,  quoted,  106. 
Council  of  Hispana,  etc.  xxxix. 
Cyprian,  Epist.   68,  41.5,  and  5,  6,  5-5,  416, 

417  ;  Epist.  74,  463  ;  Epist.  29,  483. 


D 


Decret.  de  Translat.  Epist.  C.  Quanto,  222. 

Demosthenes'  Oration,  163. 

Distinct.  12.  C.  Decretis,  220. 

Distinct.  21.  C.  In  novo,  220. 

Distinct.  19.  C.  Ita  Dominus,  Nicholas,  220. 

Distinct.  22.  C.  In  Tantum,  220. 

Distinct.  21.  C.  Decretis,  Leo,  220. 

Distinct.  21.  Pdagius,  221. 

Distinct.  40.  C.  Si  papa.    Thomas,  etc.,  221. 

Distinct.  40.  C.  Non  nos  ;  etc.     Hugo.  221. 

Distinct.  24.  Qu.  1.  C.  Enim  rero.    Lucius, 

221. 
Distinct.  21.  C   Quamvis.     Pelagius,  221. 
Distinct.  14.  Lector.     Martin,  222.' 
Distinct.    32.    Qu.    7.    Quod    proposuisti, 

Gregory,  222. 
Distinct.  19.  C.  Si  Romanorum,  Gab.  Biel. 

Lib.  4.,  222. 
Distinct.  19.  Pet  de  Palude,  —  222. 
Distinct.  19.  Imperator,  222. 
Distinct.  11.  Caus.  11,  Qu.  3,  Si  inimicus, 

Glossa,  223. 
Distinct.  90.  Bulla  Donationis,  C.  Constaa- 

tine,  223. 
Distinct.  63.  C.  Ego.  Paschalis,  223. 
Distinct.  22.  C.  Sacrosancta.   Anacletus,  223. 
Distinct.  25.  Qu.  1.     Nulli— Sixt.  Decret. 

C.  ad  Arbitris.     Glossa,  223. 
Distinct.  22.  C.  Omnes — Sixt.  Decret.  Sen- 
ten,  et  Rerum  C.  ad  Apostoli,  a  Glossa, 

223. 
Distinct.  24.  Qu.  1.  C.  Recta.— Xucms,  223. 
Distinct.  12.  C.  Non  decet. — Calixlus,  223. 
Distinct.  11.  C.  Quis.     Imwcent,  223 


506 


Distinct.  22.  C.  Omnes.     Nicholas,  223. 

Distinct.  22.  C.  Sacrosancta.  Jlnacldus,  223. 

Distinct.  21.  C.  Quannvis.     Pdagius.  223. 

Distinct.  21.  C.  Denique.     Nicholas,  223. 

Distinct.  19.  C.  Enim  Vero.    Stephen,  223. 

D'Aubigne's  Ger.  Eng.  Scot.,  487. 

Doctor  Addison  Ale.tander's  '■,  Essays  on 
the  Primitive  Church  Offices,"'  264. 

Doctor  Aydelott's  Condition  and  Prospects 
of  the  P.  E.  Church,  43,  44,  46,  51,  446, 
448,  449,  452. 

Doctor  Cave's  Gov.  of  the  Ancient  Church, 
304. 

Doctor  Cave's  Lives  of  the  Fathers,  412, 
413. 

Doctor  Chapman's  Sermons  on  the  Church, 
246,  249,  256,  267. 

Doctor  Comber,  on  Roman  Forgeries  in 
Councils,  305. 

Doctor  Cook,  M.D.,  on  -the  Invalidity  of 
Presbyterian  Ordination,  337. 

Doctor  Dickinson's  Discourse  on  the  Church 
of  Christ,  4S6. 

Doctor  Duffield,  on  the  Apost.  Succession, 
199,  263,  282. 

Doctor  Field  on  Episcopacy,  249,  274. 

Doctor  Hawks'si^ccles.  Contributions,  453, 
4.')4. 

Doctor  Hook,  of  Leeds,  England,  Two  Ser- 
mons on  the  Church  and  the  Establish- 
ment, 229,  242,  248,  249,  256,  265,  270. 

Doctor  Hook's  "  Hear  the  Church,"  430. 

Doctor  Jackson's  Guide  of  Faith,  438,  439. 

Doctor  Mason,  John  M.,  Essay  on  Episco- 
pacy, 198.  239,  240,  279. 

Doctor  Mora's  Exposition  of  the  Seven 
Churches.  280. 

Doctor  Peck,  George,  on  Methodist  Episco- 
pacy, 26,  (note.) 

Doctor  Snodgrass,  on  the  Apost.  Succession. 
199,  281. 

Doctor  Spanheim's  Eccles.  Hist,  322,  333, 
337. 

Dr.  Stone,  on  the  Church  Universal,  34, 
270,  273.  274. 

Dod worth's  Lectures  on  the  Apost.  Succ, 
220,  227. 

Donovan's  English  Trans.,  475. 

Douay  Version,  68. 

T)oyle's  Catechism,  473. 

Dreido  de  Dogmat.,  etc.,  227. 

Du  Pin's  Eccles.  Hist.,  quoted,  61,  85,  249, 
294,  29.5,  436. 

Du  Pin,  on  the  Apostolical  Canons,  250. 

Du  Pin,  on  the  Romish  Mutilations,  Cor- 
ruptions, and  Forgeries  of  Ancient 
Records,  etc.,  61. 


Echard's  General  Eccles.  History,  337. 
End  of  Controversy,  475. 
Episcopacy   Asserted,   by   Bishop  Jeremy 
Taylor,  204,  208,  242,  244. 


Episcopacy  Examined,  by  Chor  Episcopi, 

229. 
Episcopal  Charge,  by  the  Bishop  of  Exeter, 

207. 

Epist.  148 — Ad  Fortunatianum,  Aug.  Op., 
74. 

Erasmus's  Scholio  in  Epist.,  etc.,  421. 

Essays  on  Episcopacy,  (a  collection  of  pa- 
pers,) 276,  280. 

Eusebius's  Eccles.  Hist.,  290.  303,  337,  416. 


Fowler's  Catechism,  229. 

Fox's  Acts  and  Monuments,  357,  358. 

Fry's  Church  History,  353. 


G 


Garden  of  the  Soul,  475. 

Gelasius.  Caus.  9.  Qu.  3,  C.  Cuncta,  221. 

Gibbon's  Decline  and  Fall,  342. 

Gildas,  de  Excid.  Gent.  Brittania,  340. 

Greg.  Epistles,  436. 

Gregory  Nazianzen,  Athanasia  0pp.,  463. 

Grotius.  Annot.  on  1  Tim.  3  :  1,  422. 

Grounds  of  Catholic  Doctrine,  quoted,  246. 

"  Guide  from  the  Church  of  Rome,"  85. 


H 


Hallam,  quoted,  26,  353. 

Hayne's  translation   of   Melchior  Adams' 

Life  of  Luther,  419. 
Hefele,  Patrum  Apost.  Opera,  quoted,  73. 
History  of  Councils,  199. 
History  of  England,  by  Macaulay,  xli. 
History  of  the  Puritans,  485. 
Homilies,  97,  162,  433. 
Hooker's  Eccles.  Polity,  458. 
Hopkins,  Bishop  of  "Vermont,  quoted,  33, 
Horas  Biblicae,  SO,  81. 
Home's  Introduction,  84. 
Hostiensis,  C.  Quanto  de  translat.  preb. — 

Baptist  Summa  Casnum,  222. 
Howell's  Pontificate,  299. 
Howell's  Canons,  etc.,  411. 


I 


Ignatius  ad  Phil.,  133. 

Ignatius  ad  Smyrn.,  163. 

Innocent,  Caus.  6,  Qu.  3,  C.  Nemo,  221. 

Innocent,  Elect  C.  Venerabilem,  221. 

Innocent.  Elect  C.  Venerabilem,  222. 

Innocent  III.  De  trans.  C.  Quanto.  Prohem. 

Clement  Glossa,  223. 
Innocent  III.  Sac.  Unci.  C.  Qui  Venisset, 222. 
Innocent  IV.     De   Elect.    C.  Venerabilem, 

Extravag.  de  Jurejurando,  C.  Venien- 

tis,  222. 
Innocent   IV.   Sixt.   Dec.   de   Sentent.  Ex. 

Com.  C.  Dilecto,  222. 


507 


Introduction  to  Lives  of  Saints  canonized, 

474,  473. 
Irenaeus  Adv.  Haeres,  73,  291,  462. 


Johnson  on  Unbloody  Sacrifice,  190. 

Johnson's  Vade  Mecum,  358,  369,  418. 

Jones  of  Nayland's  Lectures  on  the  He- 
brews, 190. 

Joseph  Mede.  In  Apocalypse,  Book  III.. 
etc.,  280. 

Josephus's  Antiquities,  461. 


K 


Keble's  Sermon   on    Primitive    Tradition, 
quoted,  62,  63,  65,  66,  67,  68,  69. 


Law's  Second  Letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Ban- 
gor, 190. 

Letter  of  John  Dobree  Dalgairus,  Esq.,  alias 
Rev.  G.  Spencer,  of  Oxford,  to  the 
editor  of  the  Univers,  236. 

Ligori.  Practical  Confessions,  444.  445. 

Literary  History  of  the  N.  T.,  110,  273. 

Loci  Communes,  484. 


M 


Mason's  Vindiciae  Ecclesiast.  Anglican,  etc., 

354,  375. 
M.  Flaccius  Illyricus,  Catalog.  Test.  Veri- 

tat.,  421. 
Martin  V.  Extravag.  C.  Regimini  Univers 

Eccles.,  222. 
Maurice's  Kingdom  of  Christ,  218.- 
Melancthon,  Loc.  Com.,  421. 
Melchior  Adams's  Life  of  Amsdorf,  419. 
Melville's  Sermons,  243. 
Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  432,  440,  441, 

457. 
Mosheim,  Eccles.  History,  162,  422. 
Muratori's  Collection,  474. 


N 


Nicholas,  Caus.  15,  Qu.  6,  C.  Auctorit.,  222. 
Noelli  Catech.,  484. 

Norris's  Sermon  before  the  Oxford  Univer- 
sity, 400. 


O 


Old  MS.  of  Sir  H.  Spelman,  (concilia,)  336. 
'■  Old  Truths  and  New  Errors,"  quoted,  23. 
Origen,  415,  475. 


Palgrave's  History  of  the   Anglo-Saxons, 
354,  373,  374. 


Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Church,  228,  432, 
440,  44.5,  456. 

Perceval's  Coll.  of  Papers,  242,  246. 

Peck,  Rev.  George,  D.D.,  quoted,  26,  55. 

Plautina,  Life  of  Stephen  VI.,  297. 

Plautina  Nauclerus — Polydore  Virg.,  222. 

''  Plea  for  Union,"  by  Rev.  S.  H.  Tyng, 
D.D.,  xxxvi  xliii,  228,  247. 

Powell's  Apost.  Succession,  304,  305,  327. 

Private  letter  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, etc.,  x.xxvi. 

"  Protestant  Churchman,"  quoted,  xxxvi, 
xxxvii,  xxxviii,  xliii.  xliv,  xlv,  xlvi, 
16,  23,  24,  25,  29,  208,  219,  400,  447, 
452,  458,  459. 


R 


Rees'  Encyclopedia,  348. 

Reinerius  Saccho,  467. 

Riddle's  Eccles.  Chronicles,  295. 

Rights  of  the  Church,  163. 

Romish  Breviary,  342,  474. 

"  Roman  Catholic  Debate,"  quoted,  38,  77, 

78,  84,  119,  122,  300,  301,  302,  323. 
Rev.  Palmer  Dver's  Work  on  Episcopacy, 

227. 
Roman  Pontifical,  189. 


Schleusner,  422. 

Sewell's  Christian  Morals,  quoted,  71. 

Sixt.  Decret.  C.  Felicis,  Glossa,  222. 

Spanheim's  Eccles.  History,  quoted,  64. 

Speech  of  General  Shields,  before  the 
Senate  of  the  U.  S.,  xxxv. 

Spiritual  Despotism,  by  Isaac  Taylor,  231. 

St.  Ambrose,  De  Penitentia,  463 ;  Com- 
ment., 2  Tim.  5  :  1,  484. 

S.  Hieron,  in  Tit.  c.  3,  xxxi.  xxxiv,  in  Tit. 
c.  1,  330. 

Stratten's  Arg.  for  the  Apost.  Succession, 
157,  259,  262,  203,  266,  268,  301. 

Suicer,  Thesan.  Eccles.,  422. 

Sum.  Mag.  Pars.  3,  Antonini,  222. 

Survey  of  Church  Discipline,  quoted  by 
Millar,  485. 

Synwiaclnis,  Caus.  9,  Qu.  3,  C.  Aliorum,  221. 


Tertullian's  Adv.  Jud.,  340  ;  De  Baptisma, 
415  ;   De  Praescript.,  462,  463. 

"  The  Bible  True,"  84. 

"  The  Church  of  Christ,"  etc.,  Rev.  R.  W. 
Dickinson,  D.D.,  xxviii. 

The  Church  of  England  and  America  com- 
pared, 234. 

"  The  Church  of  England  'Wish,"  etc.,  451. 

The  Presbyterian  of  Feb.  12,  1842,  480,482. 

The  Primitive  Church,  etc.,  by  Rev.  A.  B. 
Chapin.  270,  321,  323,  332,  333,  334, 
335,  336,  337,  338,  344,  345,  346,  347, 


508 


348,  349,  351,  3/32,  354,  357,  363,  3G4, 
:,,  3G5,  366,  367,  368,  369,  370,  374.  390, 
•:  391,407,  425,  426,  434 
The  Witness,  Edinburgh,  249. 
Theophilus  Anglicaiius,  Woalsworth,  xxxi, 

xxxiv,  XXXV. 
Towers'  Illustration  of  Prophecy,  388. 
Tracts  for  the  Tinnes,  No.  77,  quoted,  65. 
Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  90,  65,  67. 
Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  1,  207. 
Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  5,  219. 
Tracts  for  the  Times.  No.  4,  229. 
Tracts  for  the  Times^  Vol.  II.,  229. 
Tracts  for  the  Tiroes,  No.  7,  242,  246. 
Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  5,  243. 
Tracts  for  the  Times,  No.  1,  246. 
Treatise  on  Antichrist,  419. 
Treatise  on  "  The  Man  of  Sin,"  353. 
True     Churchmanship     Vindicated,      etc., 

xxxvii,  xxxviii,  xxxix,  xlii,  331. 
Turner's  History  of  the  Anglo-Saxons,  354. 
Two  Treatises  on  the  Church,  458. 


Urban^  Caus.  15,  Qu.  6,  C.  Juratos,  222. 
Urban  II.,  Caus.'  23,  Qu.  3,  Excom.,  222. 


Vaughan's  Life  of  Wickliffe,  421. 
Vitringa,  De  Synagogue,  422. 

W 

Waddington's  History  of  the  Church,  464, 

466. 
Waterland  on  the  Trinity,  69. 
"  What  is  the  Church  of  Christ  ?"  quoted, 

37. 


Zachary,  Caus.  15,  Qu.  6,  C.  Alius,  221, 222 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Aaron,  Priesthood  of,  96. 
Absolution,  Episcopo-Priestly,  225. 
Act  of  Conformity,  etc.,  405. 

Uniformity,  etc.,  28. 

Acts  and  names,  official,  211-213. 
Aidan,  348,  349. 

Anglican  Reformation.      (See  on  Reforma- 
tion.) 
and  American  P.  E.  Church  on  the 

powers  of    the    priesthood.      (See     on 

Prie.sthood,  Christian.) 
Albigenses,  456. 
Alpheus,  James,  not  Bishop  of  Jerus,  365, 

366. 
Altar,  491. 
Amalarius,  327. 

Andronicus  and  Junia's,  not  apostles,  127. 
Angel,  Apocalyptic,  130.     The  name,  213, 

281,  282      The  Ephesian,  282. 
Anglican   Reformers,   the  first,  Romanism 

of,  xli,  xliii,  xliv. 
Antichrist,  37G-379,  380. 
Antichristianism,  see  Appendix  A. 
Anti-prelatists.      Advocate   and    possess  a 

true  succession,  263,  264-268,  (note)  264, 

265. 
Anti-prelatists.     Error  of,    regarding    the 


theory  of  prelacy,  xxxvi,  corrected  by 

Dr.  Tyng,  ib.,  present  duty  of,  xlix. 

Antioch,  Council  of,  on  popular  election,  163. 

Apollos,  not  an  apostle,  127. 

Apostasy,  predicted   by   Paul,    376.      (See 
also  Appendix  A.) 

Apostle,  the  7iame  assumed  by  the  agents 
of  the  Church's  apostasy,  176. 

The  title  used  in  a  double  sense,  131. 

Apostles.  The  twelve,  their  vocation,  107  ; 
signs  of,  108;  applied,  108-114,  186; 
their  number,  twelve  only,  124-137  ;  their 
superiority,  108;  their  apostolical  equal- 
ity, 115-123;  their  functions  not  divisible, 
nor  communicable,  139  ;  and  hence  tem 
porary,  139  ;  not  bishops,  206. 
•  False,  176. 


Apostolical  Tradition,  62. 

Canons.  250. 


Apocrypha,  uncanonical,  82. 
Aries,  (see  on  Augustine)  341. 
Arrogance,  (see  on  Episcopacy) . 
"  As  my  Father  hath  sent  me,"  etc. 

position  of,  187. 
Angustine,       335, 

344,    345,    346, 

354,    35.5,    356, 

363,    364,    368, 

374, 


Ex 


336, 

338, 

341, 

343. 

349, 

351, 

352, 

353, 

357, 

358, 

350, 

362, 

369, 

371, 

372, 

373, 

509 


B 


Bancroft,  Archbishop,  28. 
Baptism.  Infants,  92  ;  limited  by  Presby- 
terians, 40;  unlimited  by  the  P.  E 
Church,  41;  this,  a  potent  engine  of 
proselytism,  ib. ;  involves  the  opus  oper- 
atum  "dogma  of  Romanists,  42  ;  denied 
by  Low-churchmen,  ib. ;  fallacy  of,  from 
a  view  of  the  three  theories  of,  42-45 ; 
birth-right,  448.  ,      ,.     .       ,  t. 

Baptismal  regeneration,  the  basis  ol  iTo- 
testant  Episcopacy,  48 ;  office  of,  45 ; 
can  a  change  be  effected  in  1  45-48.  (See 
on  '•  Occidentalis,"  etc.) 

Barnabas,  not  an  apostle  in  the  strict  sense, 
131, 273. 

Barron  ius,  291. 

Barrow,  Dr.,  206,  207,  211, 216. 

Barzillai,  254. 

Becket  222. 

Bede.   '  (See  Index  to  Authorities.) 

Bellarmine.      (See  Index  to  Authorities.) 

Benedictine  Monks,  333,  334,  336,  337. 

Beveridge,  Bishop,  242,  247. 

Beza.  Mr.  Gallagher's  error  in  regard  to, 
xviii.     True  position  of  Beza,  xl,  xli. 

Bible.  Protestants  have  an  authentic  copy 
of,  80,  §1 ;  not  dependent  on  Rome  for, 

84.  •  ,      .. 
Romanists  have  neither  an  authentic 

copy  of,  80,  81 ;  nor  commentary  on,  83. 

'■  prior  to  the  Church,  78-80. 

to  Low- 


Birth-right  baptism,  44S. 

"  Blasphemous,"'  what,  accordin 

churchmen,  23. 
Bishop.      Import  of  the  title,   1-59;    how 

used  in  the  time  of  Ignatius,  213  ;  used 

interchangeably  with  that  of  elder,   125, 

159  ;  qualifications  of,  157. 
and  Presbyter.     Their  identity  and 

equality,   etc.,   409-412-    further   proofs 


of  FiVsi,  from  the  Early  lathers,  Clemens 
Romanus,  a.d.  70,  412 ;  2d,  Ignatius,  a.d. 
101,  413;  3d,  Justin  Martyr,  a.d.  1^5.5, 
413  ■  4th,  Irenaeus,  a.d.  184,  414 ;  5th. 
TertuUian,  a.d.  198,  414;  6th,  Origen, 
A.D.  204-2-50,  415;  7th,  Cyprian,  ad. 
248-258.  415  ;  8th,  Firmilian,  his  cotem- 
porary,  416  ;  9thi  Ambrose,  a.d.  370, 
416 ;  10th,  Chrysostom,  between  370  and 
407,'416;  Hth,  Jerome,  of  Rome,  a.d. 
363' 420.  Second,  General  testimony  of 
the'  Christian  Church.  1st,  African 
Church,  418;  2d,  Greek,  ib. ;  3d,  West- 
ern or  Roman,  ib. ;  4th,  Lutheran,  ib. ; ! 
5th,  German  Reformed,  419  ;  6th,  French. 
ib  •  Waldensian,  ib. ;  7th,  Scotch  and 
Dissenting  Churches,  420.  Third,  of  the 
greatest  divines  since  the  Reformation. 
Wickliffe,  421 ;  Erasmus,  ib. ;  Cranmer, 
ib  •  Calvin,  ib. ;  Beza,  Melancthon,  ib. : 
Blo'ndell  and  Dalleus,  ib. ;  M.  Flaccius 
Illyricus,    ib.  j    Claude,    ib.  ;    Bochart, 


422  ;  Grotius,  ib. ;  Vitringa,  ib. ;  Mosheim, 
ib.  ;'Suicer,  ib. ;  Schleusner,  ib. ;  Arch- 
bishop Usher,  ib.  Fourth,  of  the  Angli- 
can Reformers  themselves,  backed  by 
royal  authority,  423-i:i0;  a  dilemma, 
425 ;  Mr.  Chapin's  att.-.npt  to  escape 
therefrom,  425,  426  ;  failure  of,  426. 
Boadicea,  Queen,  340. 
Bohemians,  378. 

Bonner.     The  king's  bishop,  234. 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  on  priestly  abso- 
lution, 225. 
Book     of    Common     Prayer.      ProtestatU 
1      Churchman  opposed  to  a  revision  of,  xliii, 
'     xliv  (note) . 
Boundary-line  of  modern  schism,  etc.  Lau- 

dcan  High-churchism,  xlii. 
Briton,  Old.     Its  relation  to  Rome  at  the 
time  of  Augustine's  mission,  a.d.  .595, 
339  ;  subject  to  the  Ca?sars,  a.d.  70  ;  dis- 
enthralled, a.d.  410;  Christianity  early 
introduced,  340;  Bede,   Gildas,  Churton, 
ib. ;    invaded  by  the  Saxons,  a.d.  449  ; 
Churches    destroyed,    and    the    bishops 
with  their  flocks,  flee,  some  to  France, 
some  to  Wales,  341,  Churton  ;  arrival  of 
Augustine,    a.d.   395,  341 ;    his   mission 
Romish,   341 ;    conversion   of  Etlielbert, 
Augustine  made  bishop,  settles  at  Canter- 
bury, 341-343 ;    his  authority  over  the 
Anglican  bishops,  342-345 ;  no  connec- 
tion at  this  time  between  these  and  the 
old  British  bishops  of  Wales,   Churton 
and    Bede   on,   344-351 ;    retained  their 
independence  of  Rome  till  a.d.  731,  358; 
identical   with  the   old  Cymri,  the  only 
protestors  against  the  Romish  Augustine, 
368,    369,   372,  373;    South    Britons    of 
Loegria,    converted  by  Augustine,    and 
formed  the  basis  of    the   Anglo-Saxou 
Hierarchy,      373-375;      the      Anglican 
Church  at  this  period  subject  to  Rome, 
371-375. 
Bucer,  xli. 
Burgess,  Bishop,  23,  35,  36. 


Caius,  290,  303. 

Calvin,  John,  33,  381.     (See  Appendix  B.) 

Calvinism  of  the  XXXIX  Articles,  and  of 
the  Anglican  clergy  and  Church  to  the 
time  of  Laud,  etc  ,  28  ;  repudiated  by  the 
so-called  Low-church  party  of  the  pre- 
sent day,  29. 

Caractatus,  340. 

Cardinal  Pole,  ejected  from  the  Anglican 
Succession  by  Chapin,  338,  339 ;  absur- 
dities of,  35.5-362,  363,  401,  403. 

Carev,  Rev.  Arthur,  237. 

"—  Rev.  Henry,  3.39. 

Catalogues.  (See  on  Tabular  views  of  the 
Succession^,  etc.) 


510 


Cathari,  or  Puritans.  46/5. 
Catholic    Church.   The    Holy.       (See    on 
Church,  the  Holy  Catholic.) 

Communion,  Bishop  Burgess  on,  2.1. 

Tradition,  13C>  large  folio  vols.,  G5; 

Book  of  Common  Prayer  on.  66. 
Catholicity.     Bishop  Burgess  on  the  name, 
35  ;  prelatical  pretense  to,  fallacious,  20. 
Celibacy,  clerical,  223. 
Chapin,  Rev.  A.  B.,  on  the  Anglican  Suc- 
cession, etc.,  28,     270,     306—320 
3.33, 
344, 
351, 
358, 
368, 


332, 
339, 
350, 
357, 
366, 


334, 
345, 
352, 
359, 
369, 


335, 
346, 
353, 
362, 
370, 


321, 
336. 
347, 
354, 
363, 
373, 


322,    323, 

337,   338, 

348,   349, 

355,    356, 

364,    365, 

374. 
Childeric,  222. 
Chillingvvorth,  97. 
Church,  The.     Her  transit  from  Judaism  to 

Christianity,  89,  169;  reconstruction  under 

Christ  and  his  apostles,  171 :  visible  and 

invisible,  91 ;  a  baptized  and  united  body, 

92,  93  ;  her  unity  and  peace,  the  design 

of  this  Treatise,  xxvii. 
The,  held  to  be,  not  a  class,  but  a 

society,    Hill    on,    37 ;     the    Episcopal, 

claimed  to  be  the  parent  of  all  religion. 

etc.,  Bishop  Burgess  on,  36. 
The,  of  Philippi,  its  ministry  the 

model  for  all   time,   166;   compared  by 

Paul  with  Rome,  166,  167. 

■  The  Holy  Catholic.     Marks  or  notes 


of,  431,  applied  to 

I.  The  Prei.atico-Episcopal  theory,  Rom- 
ish and  Protestant, 432:  disagreement of,ib. 
First  note,  Apostolicity,  applied  to  both, 
433,  434.  Second  note.  Catholicity,  434  ; 
applied,  1st,  to  the  Romish  Church,  434- 
438 ;  2d,  to  the  Anglican  Church,  438. 
Third  note,  Unity,  440  ;  applied  1st,  to  the 
Romish  Church,  441  ;  2d,  to  the  Anglican 
and  American  P.  E.  Church,  441-443. 
Fourth  note.  Sanctity,  applied  1st,  to  the 
Romish  Church,  443-445;  2d,  to  the 
Anglican  and  American  Episcopal  Church, 
445-449.  Fifth  note.  Discipline,  applied 
1st,  to  the  Romish  Church,  449 ;  2d,  to 
the  Anglican  and  American  Episcopal 
Church,   449-454. 

II.  The  Anti-prklatical  theory,  preli- 
minary. Prelatical  incongruities,  4.54  ; 
true  Catholicity  deJined,  455  ;  the  "  notes" 
applied,  1st,  Apostolicity,  460-463;  2d, 
Catholicity,  463-467  ;  3d,  Unity,  467,  468  ; 
4th,  Sanctity,  468;  5th,  Discipline,  ib. 

Church,  the  Roman  Catholic.  Eprscopacy 
of,  198;  her  orders,  199;  their  alleged - 
vicarial  powers,  199,  189  ;  summary  of; 
their  alleged  aggregate  powers,  220-224  ;[ 
her  claim  to  dispense  the  Holy  Ghost,  | 
207. 

The  Anglican.    Episcopacy  of,  197.  | 

Her  Orders,  ib.  Their  alleged  vicarial  pow- 1 


ers,  197,  198.  Her  claim  to  dispense  the 
Holy  Ghost,  207-209.  Her  Ecclesiastico- 
political  powers,  229.  Henry  VHI. — 
Writes  against  Luther. —  Queen  Catha- 
rine.— Created  a  Lay-Pontiff  by  acts  of 
Parliament — transmission  of,  to  his  suc- 
cessors, etc.,  229-231. 

Her  alleged   Independence   of   the 


See  of  Rome,  between  Augustine's  mis- 
sion to  Kent,  AD.  595,  and  Henry  VIII. 
Fallacy  of,  342-345.  The  Anglican  bishops 
and  the  Old  British  bishops  of  Wales  not 
identical,  344-351.  (See  on,  Briton,  Old.) 
Proof  of  the  Romanism  of  Augustine  as 
"the  first  Saxon  bishop  and  the  first 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,"  342-345,  and 
353,  354.  Also  of  the  Anglican  Succes- 
sion from  him,  357-362.  The  Old  Bri- 
tish Church  and  the  Anglo-English  dis- 
tinct, 350,  351.  Sophistry  of  Mr.  Chapin 
on,  351,  352.  Further  proof  of  the  above, 
352.  Augustine,  350.  Gregory's  reply 
to  him,  353.  Leo  I.,  ib.  Justinian  111., 
ib.  Anglo-Saxons  converted  by  Augus- 
tine, 354-356.  Romish  Origin  of  the 
present  Cathedral  of  Canterbury,  ib.  The 
Pall,  357.  Still  retained  by  the  Arch- 
bishops of  Canterbury,  358.  Distinction 
between  the  Old  Cymri  and  the  South 
Britons  of  Loegria — the  former,  Protes- 
tants; the  latter,  Romanists,  372,  373- 
375.  Hence  the  fallacy  of  the  above 
plea  of  Anglican  Church  Independence 
of  Rome,  358, 365-370.  Anglican  Church 
remained  subject  to  Rome  to  the  time  of 
Henry  VIII.,  371-375.  Her  separation 
from  Rome  an  act  of  schism  and  rapacity, 
388-391.  Hence,  a  new  Church,  391, 
392.  Under  Edward  VI.,  Protestant 
principles  still  subordinate,  393-396.  Li- 
turgy— Romish  character  of,  396,  397. 
Use  of  Coercion,  etc.,  397-399.  Reca- 
pitulation, 399.  Her  high  Protestant  pre- 
tensionis,  399,  400.  But,  under  3Iari/,  Ro- 
manism again  restored  by  act  of  Parlia- 
ment, 400-403.  (See  Appendix  F.) 
Another  change  under  Elizabeth  by  act 
of  the  same  Parliament,  when  all  again 
become  Protestant,  403.  Coercion  agam 
employed,  404-406. 

Church,  Anglican  and  American,  identical, 
228.  Derivation  of  the  American,  from 
the  J^ay-headship  of  the  Anglo-English 
crown,  232-234,  407.  Their  united  arro- 
gant claims,  228,  229.  Their  alleged  un- 
broken succession  suspended  on  four  con- 
ditions, 407,  408. 

The  American  Protestant  Episco- 
pal. Her  ecclesiastico-political  approx- 
imations to  her  Anglican  ancestor  and 
ally,  234.  235.  Unprotestantizing  influ- 
ences at  work,  235-238.  Difiiculties  of 
reform,  50.  Divisions  in,  31.  Four 
sects,  21. 


511 


•— ^^  Presbyterian,  in  the  generic  sense, 
comprehends  all  Evangelical  anti-prc- 
latical  bodies.  The  marks  or  notes  of, 
1st,  Apostolicity,  460-103  ;  2d,  Catho- 
licity, 403-167  ;  3d,  Unity,  407,  46S  ; 
4th,  Sanctity  ;  5lh,  Discipline.  Analo- 
gous to  the  Ephesian,  281.  Its  Effi- 
ciency, 325.  Of  Geneva.  (See  on 
Gallagher,  Rev.  Mason.) 

Church,  Methodist  Episcopal,  26,  27. 

Chrysostom,  162,  416. 

Churton.  Mr.  E.,  339,  340,  341,  345,  348, 
350,  35 1. 

Claude,  Bishop  of  Turin,  377. 

Clemens  Romanus,  32-3,  412. 

Circle,  the  Vicious,  77. 

Cisternian  Abbots,  377. 

Clergy,  the  Episcopal,  45. 

Columba,  St.,  347,  348,  349. 

Commission  of  •'  the  twelve  apostles" — 
What  constitutes,  217. 

Confessional,  the,  223. 

Controversy,  aversion  to,  16.  The  prelati- 
cal,  not  a  war  of  words,  18. 

Consistency,  duty  of  Low  Churchmen  in 
regard  to,  34. 

Continental  Reformation,  (see  on  Reforma- 
tion ) 

Council  of  Trent,  .:  99.  On  the  Church's 
power  to  dispense  the  Holy  Ghost,  207. 

Conventions,  Diocesan,  of  New  York,  in 
1839  and  1843.  Aim  to  un protestantize 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  136, 
137. 

Covenant,  Abrahamic,  90. 

Cranmer,  Thomas.  "  The  king's  Bishop," 
234.  His  character  and  end,  338,  357, 
362. 

Creaturehood,  angelic  and  human.- — Apos- 
tasy of,  90.  Their  integrity  to  God  tested 
under  every  dispensation,  173. 

Creed,  Oral,  62. 

Apostles's,  none  such,  63,  64. 

Culdees,  who  were  they  ?   347. 

Cymri,  the  Old,  372. 

Cyprian,  213,  224. 

Cyril,  199. 

D 

Deacons.  Origin  of,  166;  their  qualifica- 
tions, 1.57  ;  their  functions,  106-168. 

"  Defender  of  the  Faith,"'  the  title  assumed 
by  Henry  VIH.,  and  continued  to  his 
successors,  230,231. 

Delinquency,  moral,  alleged  not  to  invali- 
date the  Episcopal  succession,  218,  219. 

Demosthenes,  on  popular  election,  163. 

Development,  the  doctrine  of,  as  involved 
in  the  prelatical  theory  of  succession,  182. 

Dilemmas,  prelatical,  high  and  low  Church, 
194,  202,  204,  209,  217,  269,  425,  429, 
434,  455. 

Diocesan  Bishops,  Timothy,  Titus,  and  the 
seven  apocalyptic  angels,  not  such,  280- 
282. 


Diocesan  Episcopacy,  320. 

Uionysius  of  Corinth,  290,  303. 

Distinction,  an  important,  334. 

Discretionary  form,  Liturgical,  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  Church,  (see  on  Holy 
Ghost.) 

Divine  rij;ht  of  Kings,  (see  on  Henry  VHL) 

Dodwell,'Dr.,  227. 

Donatists,  466. 

Documents,  traditionary,  to  be  authorita- 
tive, must  be  infallible,  266,  207. 

"Declaration,  a,  made  of  the  functions  and 
Divine  Institution  of  bishops  and  priests, 
an  original,"  etc.,  by  the  first  English 
Reformers,  423. 

" a,   of  the   Christian  doctrine  for 

necessary  erudition  of  a  Christian  man," 
424. 

Dual  Orders  of  the  Church. — Presbyter- 
ter-bishops  and  Deacons,  159,  166. 


E 


Ecclesiastico-political  character  of  the  An- 
glo-English Hierarchy,  229.  Tendency 
of  the  American  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  to  approximate  to,  234. 

Echard,  Lawrence,  337. 

Elder.     Import  of,  as  a  title,  159. 

Elder  and  Bishop.  Their  titles  inter- 
changeable, 125,  159,  166. 

Elders.  Those  appointed  by  Paul  and 
Barnabas  (Acts  14  :  21-23),  neither  an 
ordination  or  a  consecration,  163;  a  plu- 
rality of,  in  each  Church,  159;  Pastoral 
and  Ruling,  138;  a  distinction  in  their 
respective  functions,  159,  100 ;  consist- 
ency of,  106. 

Elders  (teaching,  preaching  and  pastoral), 
with  Ruling  Eiders  and  Deacons,  the 
Dual  Orders  which  form  the  boundary- 
line  that  separates  the  extraordinary 
and  temporary,  from  the  ordinary  and 
permanent,  ministers  of  the  Church,  156, 
(see  Appendix  C.) 

Eleven  Arguments,  in  proof  of  the  fallacy 
of  the  Romish  dogma  of  succession,  284- 
302,  (see  on  Succession.) 

Emperor.  Of  Rome,  displaced  by  the 
Bishop  of,  340. 

England,  placed  under  interdict,  222. 

English  Church.  Summary  of  her  original 
principles,  etc.,  xxvii,  28. 

Epaphroditus,  not  an  apostle  in  the  strict 
sense,  132— but  an  evangelist,  152. 

Ephesian  Presbytery,  not  a  college  of  pre- 
latical bishops,  etc.,  274-276. 

Epiphanias,  290. 

Episcopacy,  alias  Prelacy.  The  Romish 
Church  on,  227  ;  Protestant  prelatists  on, 
227 ;  no  "  via  media"  between  it  and 
Parity,  34 ;  prelatists  ignorant  of  their 
own  system,  1S8;  discordant  views  of, 
214-219  ;  must  be  exhibited  as  it  is,  188 : 
fallacy  of  its  claim  to   Catholicity  and 


512 


Unity,  20,  258,  259,  434-43S,  4-10-443 ; 
essential  neither  to  the  existence  nor  per- 
fection of  the  Church,  31,  32 ;  the  sys- 
tem examined,  as  founded  in  expedi- 
ency ;  its  primitive  origin,  see  Part  III., 
Chapter  VI.,  of  this  Treatise.  Its  Angli- 
can, xxxviii-xlv.  26.  Declared  immacula- 
cy of,  224.  Infallible,  224,  225.  Ubiquity 
of,  224.  Its  exclusiveness,  arrogance,  etc., 
227-229.  Alleged  powers  of,  spiritual  and 
ecclesiastico-political,  229-231.  Alleged 
miraculous  powers  of,  217.  Low- 
Churchmen  in  a  dilemma  on,  202.  Their 
system  of,  the  only  prop  of  support  to,  21. 
23,  ISS.  An  alternative  left  to,  335 
This  Treatise  a  warning  against,  16. 

Episcopalians,  boast  of  their  success  in  the 
work  of  prosclytism,  39. 

Episcopate,  criterion  of,  alleged  to  be,  not 
names,  but  acts,  210, 211.  Fallacy  of,  211- 
213. 

Episcopo-Presbyterians,or  the  tables  turned, 
271.^ 

Equality,  or  parity,  of  the  N.  T.  Ministr}^, 
161. 

Error  and  Heresy.  Insidious  and  dangerous 
nature  of,  22. 

Eusebius,  290,  303,  337. 

Evangelists.  The  office  of  Varied,  152. 
Their  functions,  152. 

Evangelical.  The  really  such,  excommu- 
nicated by  the  Low  Church  Sect,  50. 

"  Evangelical  Knowledge  Society  of  the  P. 
E.  Church."  Their  repudiation  of  Cal- 
vinism, 30. 

Extraordinary  and  ordinary  powers  apos- 
tolic, severed  by  prelatists,  203.  Who 
claim  the  latter  only,  204.  Fallacy  of, 
205,206,  and  217-219. 

Expediency,  Episcopacy  as  founded  on. 
Differs  from  Prelacy,  jure  divino,  324. 
Based  on  the  plea  of  necessity,  ib.  Re- 
cognized ministerial  parity,  ib.  Jerome 
on,  324,  325.  An  innovation  on  the  N. 
T.  and  early  post-apostolic  ministry,  Je- 
rome on,  325,  326.  Originated  the  distinc- 
tion in  ministerial  titles — Amalarius,The- 
odoret,  Bingham  on.  327.  Formed  the 
germ  of  the  Papacy,  327,  328.  Bp.  M'- 
Ilvaine's  denial  of  primitive  parity — An- 
swer— Jerome,  Bingham — Diocesan  Epis- 
copacy— Archbp.  Whately  on,  328-330. 
Bp.  M'llvaine's  alleged  non-existence  of 
Parity  till  the  fifteenth  century,  330. 
Answer — Proof  of  its  prevalence  in  N.T. 
and  early  primitive  times — adopted  by 
the  first  Anglican  Reformers,  330,  331. 
An  alternative  to  Low- Churchmen,  331, 
332.  The  points  at  issue  i*  this  work  not 
based  on  this  theory,  15. 

Exclusive.  Proof  that  Low-Church  Pre- 
lacy is,  33,  35 — (See  on  Episcopacy  alias 
Prelacy.) 

Express  command.  Evidence  of  an,  for  the 
baptism  of  children,  93,  94. 


Fathers,  the  early,  unanimous  consent,  etc 

85,  86. 
Fletcher,  Col.  Benj.,  234. 
Frederick,  the  Emperor,  222. 
Fulke,  Dr.,  280. 


G 


Gallagher,  Rev.  Mason,  on  "  True  Church- 
manship."  etc.,  in  five  particulars, 
xxxvii.  Endorsed  by  the  Prot.  Church- 
man, ib.  His  unfounded  aspersion  of 
"the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Geneva," 
xxxviii. — His  self-contradiction,  xxxi.x. 
"  Public  acts"  referred  to  by,  ib.  His 
theory  of  Low  -  Churchism  without  a 
foundation,  xi. 

Gallia  Christiana,  334,  336. 

Genealogy,  etc.     (See  on  Succession.) 

Gibbon.  342. 

Gilda.s,  341. 

Gregory  the  Great.  Resolves  to  make 
Ro7ne  the  center  of  a  Universal  Spiritual 
Kingdom,  341,  342.  The  Saxons,  342. 
Sends  Augustine  to  convert,  342.  Who 
lands  at  Kent,  on  the  Island  of  Thanet, 
England,  343.  Its  metropolis,  Canter- 
bury, 344.  Denounces  John,  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  342,  352. 

Gross  impostors.  Bp.  McCoskrey  on,  185, 
227. 


H 


Hallam,  Origin  of  High  and  Low  Church, 
26. 

"  Headship  of  Christ,"  alleged  to  be  trans- 
ferred to  "  the  twelve"  and  their  succes- 
sors, 214-216.  Attempted  evasion  of, 
216.     Fallacy  of,  217. 

'•  Hear  the  Church."     In  what  sense,  56. 

Hebaiah,  254. 

Helps,  Governments,  etc.,  154,  155. 

Henry  II.,  222. 

IV.,  ib. 

v.,  ib. 


Henry  VIII.  ascends  the  British  throne,  a.d, 
1509, 230.  England  now  subject  to  Rome, 
332.  Throws  off  the  Papal  yoke,  ib. 
Assumes  supreme  lay-headship  in  Church 
and  State,  ib.  An  act  of  schism  against 
the  See  of  Rome,  compare  pp.  221-223, 
with  371-375.  Based  on  the  alleged 
Divine  right  of  Kings,  382, 383.  Fallacy 
of,  383-387.  Identical  with  the  popedom 
of  Rome,  and  hence,  antichristian,  387. 

Heresy  and  schism,  xxx-xxxv,  22. 

Holy  Ghost.  The  apostles  only,  could  dis- 
pense it,  113,  114,  145,  146-148.  Simon 
Magus's  attempt  to  purchase  the  pov/er  to 
bestow,  182.  The  power  to  bestow,  never 
transferred  by  the  apostles  to  others,  207. 
Yet  claimed  by  Prelatists  of  all  grades,  to 


513 


be  conferred  in  the  act  of  consecration  and 
ordination,  191,  207-200,  217,  211-245. 
Prelatical  dilemma — attempted  evasion 
of.  by  the  use  of  the  di.scrutionary  form, 
20S.  Fallacy  of,  ib.  Proof,  that  the 
Anglican  Church  borrowed  the  practice 
from  Rome,  215. 

High    Priesthood.       (Se^;    on     Priesthood, 
Christian.) 

Hobart,  Bp.  compared  with  himself,  on  the 
article  of  charity,  etc.,  2;iS,  239. 

and  Dr.  J.M.  Mason,  on  the  words 

A.-,  and  Mer',  27C-278. 

Hooker,  213. 

Homilies.  Book  of,  97. 

H  ughes,  Cardinal  Archbishop  of  New  York, 
3(33. 

Hugo,  222. 

Huss.  378. 

Hussites,  ib. 

I 


John  Calvin,  (Sec  Appendix  B.) 

Johnson,  on  Unbloody  Siurifi.t",  1.'9. 

JOAN,  Pope,  a  woman,  lO'Hli  in  Gavin's 
line,  1 13.  (See  also  pp.  313, 322,  and  Ap- 
pendix E.) 

John,  Patriarch  of  Constaulinople.  312. 

Judaico-Christianized  Prieslliood.  opposed 
to  the  religion  ot  faitli,  109. 

I  Justification  by  Faith,  91,  HM. 

'Justin  Martyr, 7'1,  413. 

j  Justinian  III.,  353. 


K 

Keys,  the  Exposition  of,  117.  119.  120. 
Kings,  alleged  divine  right  of.  3\l.     Fallacy 

of,  384-387. 
Koz,  254. 
Kyle,  VI.,  22. 


Ignatius,  163,  213.  224,  413. 

Image  Worship,  223. 

Impostors,  gross.      Anti-Prelatists   alleged 

to  be  such,  216,  227,  250,  266. 
Independence,    alleged,    of  the    Anglican 
Church,  etc.    (,See  on  Church,  Anglican.) 
Inductive,  the  plan  of  argumentation  of  this 

work,  89 
Infallible,  the  Twelve  Apostles  were,  110. 
_,  Ground  of,  as  a  Traditionary  Stand- 
ard, 58. 
Infallibility,  Romish,  8 1 ,  82. 
Infants.     Their  right  to  Church  member- 
ship by  baptism,  92. 
Inquisition,  223. 
Inspiration,  the  twelve  apostles   endowed 

with,  109.  ' 

Interchangeable  use  of  the  titles  Presbyter 

and  Bishop,  159,  274,  27-5,  409. 
Interpretation,  Private — Protestant  defense 

of,  75-77. 
Interpreters  of  Scripture,  not  infallible,  57, 

74. 
Irenffius,  73,  290,  291,  303,  364. 
Irenicum,  Stillingtleet's,  280. 
Irvingites,  217. 
Itineracy,  the  lunctions  of  limothy  and  li- 

tus  an,  152. 
Ives,  Bishop  of  North  Carolina,  225. 


James,  the  apostle,  has  superior  claims  ofi 
primacy  over  the  See  of  Rome  to  those  of| 
Peter,  286.  Was  not  Bishop  of  Jerasa-i 
lem,  365,  306.  (Note.)  1 

Jerome,  324,  32-5,  329, 330. 

Jesuitism  of  Protestant  Episcopacy,  199. 

John,  the  apostle,  has  superior  claims  to  pri- 
macy over  the  See  of  Rome  to  tho- j  of 
Peter,  287.  This  apostle,  on  the  hypo- 
thesis of  suceessionists.  inferior  to  Linus, 
301.     Did  not  ordain   Polycarp,  336-3.38. 


Laity,  of  the  Episcopal  ChuTch,  46. 
Lay-baptism,  the  validity  of,  denied  by  Dr 

Tyng,  36. 
"  Laying  on  of  hands,"  distinction  between, 
in  bestowing  spiritual  gitts,  and  ordaining 
to  office,  145,  146,  149-151. 
Laud,  Archbishop,  the  father  of  exclusive 

High-Churchism,  xli,  28. 
Legislation,  Miscellaneous  Church — Defects 

of,  164,  165. 
Leo  I.,  353. 
Leonites,  467. 
Leyden  Jar,  alias  the  virus   of  Episcopal 

Consecration,  250. 
Limitation,  the  principle  of,  in  baptism  de- 
fended, 40.  41. 
LlandaflT    and  iMcneva.  Archbishoprics   of,. 

305-308. 
"Lo,  I  am  with  you  always,"  etc.,  exposi^ 

tion  of,  76,  180. 
Lord's  Supper,  the  bond  of  union  to  the  visi- 
ble Church,' 94. 
Lot,  the,  its  use  in  the  case  of  Matthias,  13.5, 

137,  272. 
Low-Churchism,  the  writer  not  hostile  to 
the /»•«"  theory  of.  xlviii.  (See  on  Gal- 
I  lagher,  Rev.  Mason.)  Presbyterian-^ 
!  mistaken  as  to  its  true  character,  20. 
i  Proof  of  its  departure  from  the  original 
platform  of  the  Anglican  Church  under 
I  Edward  YI.,  xxx,  29,  .331.  Its  desi-n. 
24,  32,  39.  DiffereiH-e  between  the  pre- 
sent, and  that  of  the  Reformed  Anglican 
Church,  xliii.  Low  Churchmen  charged 
with  inconsistency.  2(1!.  Imongruity  ot 
their  theory  of  prelacy,  with  their  deniiil 
of  being  exclusive,  •.i<  Low  Churchmen 
and  Dr.  Tyng  at  variance,  xxxvi,  xxxviii. 
Fallacy  of  Mr.  Gallagher's  theory  of,  xi. 
(See  on  Gallagher.  Rev.  Mason.)  P.. 
practical  workiunsa  proof  of  its  Romaii- 
izin"  tendencies.^21.31.      Concession  ui. 


514 

xHv.  Proof,  that  it  forms  themoi:t  pow-  comitant  of  the  Vi.-ible  Church  State,  89. 
eriul  agent  in  promotinif  the  Romish  de-       Di\  ersities  of,  I  OS. 

hision,  ',iQ,  'J.'JS.  Affirms  that  '■//«:  I.  Orisrin  of.  Appointments  to,  1st.  by 
Chiin-h"'  has  power  to  confer  the  Holy  Christ  himselt,  1)8;  iJil,  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  SOS.  Spirit  of  inquiry  among,  xliv  (ihost.  f>y  ;  3il,  by  the  Apostles.  99  ;  4!h, 
-xlvi.  A  Dilemma,  xlvi,  xlvii.  An  by  the  Apostles  with  others.  99  ;  -Oth,  by 
Alternative,  xlvii,  xlviii.  :      oihers    williont    ihe    Aposlirs,  09:    6tli, 

I.iiidhard,  Bishop  of,  accompanies  Beriha,  Uncertain,  99-101  ;  7lh,  by  Special  Provi 
the  Queen  of  Ethclbert,  to  Kent,  in  F.n-       dence,  lOJ. 

gland.  The  only  Bishop  there,  on  the  ar-  II.  Xature  of,  102.  1st,  ^Toral  fitness,  102: 
rival  of  Au;;u£iine,  a.u.  595,  and  he,  a  2d,  a  divine  call,  103;  3d.  Intelleclual  tit- 
Romanist,  3A().  I     ness,  10"};  4th,  Sound  doctrine.  103  ;   Sth, 

Luther,  379.  Henry  VII I.  writes  against,]  Fraternal,  103;  6ih,  Spiritual  and  holy, 
230.  j     104;  7th,  the  unfaithful  and   unsound   to 

be  avoided.  104. 
M  jIII.    Their    Orders    o/— number    of,    10-5. 

Classilitd.   1st,  by  their  titles,  105-107  ; 

llan.  Change  of  his  moral  relation  to  God'  2d,  by  their  titles  and  functions,  107,  108, 
under  the  Christian  economy,  1C8-170.     |     109. 

"  Man  of  Sin,'"  376.  IV.   Powers  or   Fmiclions  of.     The  extra- 

Mason,  Dr..  and  Bishop  Hobart,  on  the;  ordinary  and  temporary,  as  distinguished 
Greek  words  Ai'j  and  AIet',  27G-27S.         ■     from   the  ordinary  and   permanent,  138. 

Mason,  Archdeacon,  3-54.  i     3Iode  of  designation  thereto,  157. 

JMaiirice.  Alleges  the  continuance  of  mira-  V.  Both  ditler  trom  the  Jewish,  95  (see  on 
culoiis  powers  alt  he  hands  of  modern  pre-'  Priesthood,  Christian) .  Divine  appoint- 
ialical  bishops.  2 J 7.  His  ditficulties,  ib.  ment  of,  171.  Eminently  simple  and 
Relieved  by  the  Tractarians,  Bishop  ^I'-  fraternal,  172.  lis  admirable  arrange- 
llvaine,  Melville,  217-219.  ments,    172.      Its   adequacy,    172.     Pro- 

^rCoskre}',  Bishop  of  Michigan,  on  the  In-      motive  of  union.  173. 

lallibilily  of  Bishops,  as  the  successors  of  VI.  Those  whom  Timolhy  and  Titus  were 
the  apostles,  69.  coinmissioned  to  appoint,  were  to  consti- 

M' 11  vaine.  Bishop.  On  the  discretionary  tute  the  ordinary  and  permanent  ministry 
form  in  the  ordering  of  Bishops,  etc.,  208.  i  of,  1.5S-168.  See  also  15G-1.)S.  Usurp- 
Examined,  209.  See  also  the  following:  ers  of,  how  known,  173. 
204,  207,  20S.  211,  212.  213,  217,  226,  VII.  Its  ;>e/r«-stort,  through  an  innate  love 
227.  242,  213^  247,  249,  252.  256,  274J:  o{  "  tlie  prc-eTiiinntre,''  96,  174,  175.  To 
2S1,  293,  328,    .329,  330!         '  '         'j     be  the  center-point  of  a  further  trial  of 

]\!atthias.  The  first  alleged  link  in  the  pre- j  the  Church's  integrity — Pauline  predic- 
latical  succession,  271,  272.  Proof  that  he  tion  of,  175.  Scriptural  account  of  its 
was  not  the  successor  of  Judas  Is>?ariot,  origin,  xxxviii-xliv.  Mode  of  its  mani- 
133-137.  Objections  answered — 1st.  It'  festation.  176.  Success  of.  in  Paul's  time, 
invalidates  the  inspired  narrative,  133,j  1-76.  Gradually  developed,  177.  Its 
134.       2d.  Peter    could  not  have   erred,       fruit,  the   Papacy,  177.     That  power  de- 

134.  3d.    His  election  decided   by  lot,       scribed,  177. 

135.  4lh.  The  number  twelve  is  applied  of  the   Church,  whether  of  the  cs- 

to  the  apostles  between  said  appointment       scnre  or  of  the  order  of.  33. 

and  the  vocation  of  Paul,  135.     Direct  ar-  Dual  Orders   of.  Presbyter-bishops 

gnments — Is*.  Peter's  act  premature,  135.       and  Deacons,  159. 

[Jnauthorized,  136.  Not  sanctioned  by  the  VII  1.  Mi  acufni'S  ■  povrers.  The  twelve 
prediction,  Ps.  109  :  8,  136.  Not  dictated  Apostles  endowed  with,  110.  Gradually 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  136.  The  apostles  developed,  110-114.  Inherent  in.  ar.d  a 
themselves  claimed  no  right  to  (ill  said  component  part  of,  their  functioi.s  as  a 
vacancy,  130-  Conclusion,  137.  (See  on'  whole,  201-206.  To  be  dislinguished 
Paul,  the  successor  of  Judas.)  See  also  from  the  other  Orders  of  the  N.  T.  min- 
pp.  181,  fi*25,  262.  >''5ry,  205.     Prelatical  distinction  of,  204. 

Mede,  Joseph,  280.  Fallacious,  20-5.     Alleged  by  3Iaurice  to 

-Meiliatorship,  Episcopo-priestly.  226.  be  continued  in  the  church  to  this  day, 

iMelchTscdec,  106,  215,  220,  201,  223,  257,       217. 

27-').  ?*Iithridates,  a  comparison,  15. 

."Melville,  Rev.  .Mr.,  209,  210.  Monasticism,  223. 

Meneva  anJ   Llandaff,  Archbishoprics    of.  More,  Dr.,  2S0. 

Chapin  on,  365-368.  j  N 

Methodist  Episcopacy.  26.  27. 

.Milicz,  John,  of  Prague.  378.  Name.     That  of  "  Apostle"  as  given  to  the 

Ministry,   the    New"  Testament.     A   con-      twelve,  never  transferred  to  others, 


515 


Names  and  Acts.  (Sec  on  Acts  and  Names) 
How  applied  to  the  N.  T.  ministry,  107. 
Both  necessarv  to  determine  official 
powers,  21 1--J 13.  \ 

''  No  man  taketh  this  honor,''  etc.  E-v- 
position  of,  187. 

Novaiiaiis,  AGo. 

"Nuila   Ecctesia  Sine  Ejnucopo,'''  the  basis 
of  the  dogma  of  an  unoroken  Apostolical 
Succession,  32,   1S4,  210,  218,  228,  431,  - 
442,  4J9. 

°  1 

Oblation.  192.  .         ' 

Occidentaiis  and   Bp.  Meade  on  baptismal 

regeneration.  446.  i- 

Office.  Known  only  by  names  and  acts, 
211-213.217.  I 

Office-bearers,  mode  of  their  appointment, 
162.  I 

Official  functions  of  Timothy  and  of  the 
Ephesiau  Presbytery,  not  identical,  151- 
153.  j 

Onderdonk.  Bp   H.  U..  etc.,  213  | 

Opus  Opcraliim,  32,  42,  43,  44,  45,  202.  I 

Oral  Creed,  62.  | 

Orders,  of  the  N.  T.  ministry.  Reduced, 
scale  of  the  aggregate  appointments,  13S.| 
The  ordinary  and  permanent  orders  re-; 
duced  to  two  only — Presbyter- bishojisl 
and  Deacons,  156-1 58,  158-168.  Proof,  i 
that  the  N.  T.  Orders  of  Apostles, J 
Prophets,  Evangelists,  and  Pastors  01^ 
Teachers,  as  originally  constituted,  were, 
one  and  all  extraordinary  and  temporary,; 
13S-141.  I 

Ordinary  powers,  of  the  Christian  ministry 
(see  on  Miraculous  Powers,  etc.) .  j 

OrdinatioS-,  or  "Laying  on  of  hands," j 
Two  extremes  regarding  it,  142;  A  cere- 
monial action— Delined,  ib. ;  Unlike  other! 
Rites,  it  has  been  continued  under  every. 
Dispensation,  ib. ;  Its  u.se,  I.  During  the 
Patriarchal  Age,  143;  II.  The  Jewish; 
do.,ib. ;  III.  Tne  Christian  do.,  144  ;  Wasj 
among  the  tii-st.  and  was  the  last,  ofj 
Cheists  official  Acts,  144:  Continued 
in  heaven,  ib.  Its  use  during  the  Apos-I 
tolical  Age.  The  Apostles  employed  it! 
on  various  occasions — Isl.  In  healing  the 
Sick,  145:  2d.  In  bestowing  Spiritual; 
Gilts,  ib.;  bd  In  setting  apart  a  person  to; 
some  work  or  office,  special  or  ordinary, 
145,140,  Must  distinguish  between  the 
conferment  of  spiritual  gifts,  and  that  of 
betting  apart  to  any  work  or  office,  146; 
The  lormer  act  e.vdu&ively  the  work 
of  the  Apostles,  140,  147  ;  Others  besides 
tbe  .Apostles  ordained,  etc.,  147,  14S;  Dis- 
tinction between  setting  apart  to  a  specii-1 
work  and  an  ordinary  office — the  former, 
temporary.  lhe\AUer.  permanent,  148;  Ex- 
amples —  (1  )  The  Seven  Deacons,  by  the 
Ki)oslles,  14S.     (2.)    Saul   and   Barnabas, 


by  the  Prophets  and  Teachers  of  Antio<li, 
1  JU  ;  The  case  of  Timothv — 1st.  Cn- 
cumcised  by  Paul.  MI),  151;  '-Gift  of 
God,"  imparted  by  Paul's  hantls,  14!); 
Ordained  by  •"  the  Presbytery,''  ib  ;  Proof, 
that  the  al>ove  acts  were  not  identical, 
and  that  Paul  was  not  connected  with  tlie 
latter,  149,  151;  "  Laying  on  ol  hands"  a 
Standing  Rule,  15S. 

Prool,    thai    the    wonders    performed 

by  Cniiisr  under  this  Act.  proceeded 
from  no  inJicrint  i-irtiic  of  his  human 
hand,  145;  Proof,  that  the  jlpo^Ues  dis- 
claimed, most  enipiialically.  l/ic  jiot^^ession 
of  any  inheroU  virtue  in  iheir  manual  im- 
posiliotis,  14;j — 

Prelatical  and  Anti-Prelatical  Theories 

of,  compared,  244;   Proof,  that  all  orders 
of  Prelatical  theorists  claim  an  inherent 
power  in  the  EPISCOP.VIE  •' o/" iru'tH^y 
the  Holy  Ghost  ih  the  collation  of  Holy 
Orders.'    as   absolutely  indis(>eiisdblc  to 
a   valid   ministry — Romanitts,    Bc>ok    of 
Common   Pray:jr,   Dr.    Hook,  and    Bps. 
Jer.   Taylor,    Beveridge,    Hobart,   Gris- 
wold,    M'llvaine,    etc ,'  on.    191,  207- 
209,  217,  241-245— Proof,  that  the  Prol. 
Episc.  theory  of,   is   derived    (rom   the 
Church  of  Rome,  245.     Conditions  of  a 
Valid  Ordination  or  Consecration — Three 
Canons  on, — requiring  Episco}«l  Baptism. 
Ordination  as  Deacons  and    Piicsts.  and 
THREE  CONSECRATORS~Dr  Field, 
Bingham,  etc.,  on,  245-250.  272.  27-'!,  277, 
295,  302.     On  this  last,  ProleUant   Pre- 
latists  are  more  tenacious  tLan  Roman- 
ists themselves — absurdity^  of,  250.    The 
Holy    Ghost    claimed    to    bo    imparte<l 
through  it,  and  hence,  indispensable  to  a 
Valid   Succession,  241-245.     Romanists, 
P.  E   Cuurch,  Perceval,  Dr.  Hook,  Bps. 
Taylor,    Beveridge,    Hobart.    Giiswoid, 
Ji'Ihaine,   242;  Not   vitiated  by  moral 
delinquency,  242 ;    fallacy  of,  243    (see 
also    Part    II.,  pp.  142-151) ;    Arrogance, 
of,  213;  Proof  that  the  prelatical  theory 
of!  is  of  Romish  origin,  215  ;    See  also  on 
this  subject,  pp.  247,  24b ;  Absurdity  of, 
250 ;  Definition  of  the  term  "  Ordained," 
251,  252. 
Ordo,   Gradus,    Officium,— Order,    Degree, 
and  Office,  denned,  411.     Their  origin,  ib. 
Origen,  on  Tradition,  73. 
Oxford  Tractarians,  107,  201. 


Pall,  the,  what?  357-359.  Still  retained 
by  the  archbishops  of  Canterbury,  ib. 

Palmer,  Rev.  Mr.,  Treatise  on  tbe  Churcii, 
22S.  432,  440,  450. 

Pandulph,  222. 

1  Papacy,  the,  described,  177.     The  antichri.<- 

I     tiac   apostasy   predicted   by    Paul,    179. 


516 


(See  also    Appendix  A.)  and   page  376. 
Their  consistency,  199,  200. 

I'apias,  290,  303. 

I'anty,  ministerial,  the  divinely-appointed 
ordinary  and  permanent  ministry  of  the 
Church,  IGl.  Delined,  xxxiii.  The  Cor- 
ner-Stone  ot'  the  Presbyterian  polity,  28. 
Its  elficiency,  32.'').  Post-apostolic  Epis- 
copacy an  innovation  of,  32-5.  (See  Part 
III.,  Chap.  VI.,  Sec.  1.  of  this  Treatise.) 
No  "  via  media"  between  it  and  Prela- 
cy, 34.  Adopted  by  the  first  English 
Reformers,  xxxviii-xliv,  27.  Each  sys- 
tem involves  fundamental  principles, 
xxxi,  17,  18. 

Parliament,  the  English,  ratify  Henry 
VIII. 's  as.sun)ption  of  Headship,  spiritu- 
al dfid  temporal,  229. 

Pastors,  (see  on  Prophets,  etc.) 

Paul,  the  Apo-stle.  Signs  of  his  apostleship, 
109.  Is  the  legitimate  successor  of  Ju- 
das, 133,  137,  181.  His  dispute  with 
Peter,  123.  His  superior  claims  to  pri- 
macy over  the  See  of  Rome  to  those  of 
Peter,  286.  Not  personally  connected 
with  Timet hy-s  ordination  by  the  Ephe 
sian  Presbytery,  277. 

and   not   Peter,  the  apostolic   agent 

appointed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  furnish 
the  modd  for  the  permanent  ministry  of 
the  Church,  168. 

Pauliceans,  466. 

Penances,  223. 

Pepin,  222. 

Percival,  Rev.  Mr.,  242,  247. 

Perilous  times,  Paul's  prediction  of,  xxxviii. 

Perverts  to  Rome,  236 

Peter,  the  apostle.  His  confession  of 
Christ,  117,  118.  Change  of  his  name, 
116.  Christ's  command  to  him,  "  Feed 
my  lamb.?,"  etc.,  120.  Romish  claims  in 
his  behalf  of  primacy  over  that  See,  ex- 
amined. 115-123.  Proof  of  the  superior 
claims  to,  in   behalf  of  James,  Paul,  and 

.  John,  286,  288.  Proof  that  he  never  vi- 
sited Rome,  288-292.  Review  of  his 
a!<encv  in  the  appointment  of  Matthias, 
134,  l'3.'3. 

Peter  Martyr,  xli. 

Petition  of  the  Protestant  Parliament  of 
England  to  Queen  Mary,  etc.,  400-403. 
(See  also  Apjiendix  F.) 

Phi  I  potts,  Bp.  of  Exeter,  207. 

Pilgrimage,  223. 

Pius  IV.,  Creed  of  Pope,  237,  238,  369. 

P.)le,  Cardinal.      (See  on  Cardinal  Pole.) 

Polity,  Ecclesiastical,  the  N.  T.,  analogous 
to  the  Synagogue,  164  A  choice  between 
three  systems,  164.  165. 

Polycarp,  on  Tradition,  73.  Not  made  bi- 
shop by  the  apostles,  290,291.  Not  or- 
dained by  ihe  apostle  John,  336-338. 

Pope,  on  the  name,  285,  286. 

i'opes.   Innocent  IV..  ,377. 

Marlm  V.,  :J79. 


Alexan.ler  III.,  377. 

Lucius  II.,  377. 

Clement  lit.,  377. 

Innocent  III.,  377. 

Honorius  III.,  377. 

Gregory  IX.,  377. 

Popular  election.  Primitive  Church  offi- 
cers appointed  by ;  Demosthenes,  Ignatius, 
Tyndal,  on,  162-164. 

"  Pre-eminence. ''  An  innate  love  of,  com- 
mon to  all  created  intelligences,  173-175. 

Preface  to  Common  Prayer,  24,  34,  35, 248. 

Prelacy  (see  on  Episcopacy). 

Presbyter-bishops,  27,  151,168.  (See  also 
on  Elders.) 

Presbyter  and  Bishop.     (See  on  Elder.) 

Presbyterian  Church,  (see  on  Church  Pres- 
byterian )  Of  Geneva,  (see  on  Galla- 
gher, Rev.  Mason.) 

Baptism  of  Infants,  on  the  limited 


principle,  40-42,  448 

The  ministry,  first  adopted  by  the 

English  Church,  xxxviii-xliv,  28.  Ad- 
milted  to  livings  in  the  English  Church, 
etc.,   xxxviii. 

Presbyterians,  their  erroneous  views  of  the 
system,  so  called,  of  Evangelical  Low- 
Churchism,  26.  Au  appeal  to,  39.  Ad- 
monished, 31-53. 

Prefsbytery,  the  Ephesian,  not  a  college  of 
prelatical  bishops,  151,  274-276, 

Prideaux,  Bishop,  299. 

Priesthood,  the  Aaronic.  The  Christian 
ministry  alleged  to  be  the  antitype  of, 
and  analogous  to,  by  prelatists,  189.  Com- 
pared, I.  The  Romish,  ib.  IT.  TheTrac- 
tarian,  ib.  III.  The  HiKh  Church,  190. 
IV.  The  so-called  Low-Church,  191.  V. 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  191.  Its  priestly 
or  vicarial  character,  192.  Denied  by 
some,  ib.  Attempted  escape  from,  ib 
Theory  of  expediency  applied  to,  193 
Inconsistency  of,  94.  Occasions  discord 
ib.  Low-Church  dilemma  on,  ib.  High 
Church  scheme  most  consistent,  ib.  Re- 
sult, 195.  The  above  theory  fallacious 
1st,  Aaronic  priesthood  in  no  sense  typi' 
cal  of  the  Christian  ministry,  195,  196 
2d,  Christ  the  only  antitype  of  the  Aaron 
ic  orders,  ib.  ;  3d,  no  analoijy  between 
the  two,  107-199;  4th,  Christ's  prie.st- 
hood  perfect,  200  ;  5th,  Christ's  priest- 
hood not  transferable  toothers,  ib.  Fur- 
ther.— This  analogy,  if  true,  must  corre- 
spond with  its  type  :  1st,  in  the  mode  of 
its  transmission  and  perpetuity,  251; 
2d,  in  their  respective  vocations,  256-258; 
3d,  in  their  respective  limits.  258,  259; 
4th,  the  whole  theory  conflicts  with  the 
New  Testament  on  the  subject,  250.  —  See 
alsv.  ,ip.  200-202;  5th,  involves  the  con- 
tinuance of  an  abrogated  priesthood,  259; 
6th,  also,  that  each  of  the  twelve  apostles 
must  have  a  separate  line,  ib.  Proof  that 
this  farmed  no  part  cf  their  mission,  200, 


517 


261.     The  prelatical  hypothesis,  if  true,,  R 

must  retain  all  the  original  priestly  func-  u        i        r 

tions  apostolic,  203.     Attempted  evasion  Rapacity.    The  Anglican  Church  guilty  of, 
of,  301,   305,   306.     Inconsistency  of  its  |     against  the  See  of  R./uie,  38S,  3S9,  404. 
aJvo'-atPS,    207-209.        How    accounted  Raymond.  Count,  377.  ;i7S. 
for,     209.        Their    high    claims     210-  REFORMATION,  The.     Cardinal  Prmci- 
213.      Criterion  of  the  powers    assum- 
ed— not   names,   but  acts.      Fallacy  of, 


210-2)3.  Of  the  nature,  character,  and 
extent  of  their  alleged  powers — Christ's 
Priestly  Headship  transferred,  214-219. 
Continuance  of  miraculous  powers  as- 
serted by  Maurice,  217.  Moral  delin- 
quency no  barrier  to  the  succession,  218, 
219.  Romanists  on,  220-224.  Protestant 
prelatists  on,  224-226. 

Primacy,  alleged,  of  St.  Peter,  by  Roman- 
ists, examined,  115-123. 

and  supremacy  in  the  Church,  not 

established  by  Christ,  284-302.  (See  on 
Succession.) 

Private  interpretation.  56.  Romanists  con- 
cede the  right  of,  77.  Versus  tradition, 
86.     Protestant  defense  of,  75-77. 

Prophecy,  Paul's,  of  the  Church's  apostasy, 
175. 

Prophets,  the  New  Testament,  their  func- 
tions, 154,  155. 

,  Evangelists,  and  Pastors  or  Teach- 
ers, their  functions  somewhat  of  uncer- 
tain import,  139-141 ;  not  transferable, 
154. 

Prosperity,  External,  danger  of,  to  the 
Churches,  17. 

Protestant,  Origin  of  the  term,  380 ;  defini- 
tion of,  17. 

Episcopal  Church,  divisions  in,  21, 

31. 

Episcopacy,  the  so-called  Low- 
Church  system  of,  its  only  support,  188. 

Attempted   Erasure   of,   from    the 

title-page  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  etc.,  236,  237. 

Principles  involved  in,  376  ;  differ- 


ples  of,  what  ?  375,  376:  first  developed 
on  the  Continent  —  Claude,  VValdenses, 
377,  378;  John  Milicz,  Huss,  Jerome  of 
Prague,  378,  379  ;  Luther.  Melaricthon, 
Zwingle,  Bullinger,  Carlsladt.  (.Ecolam- 
padius",  Erasmu.s  Martin  Bucer,  I'eter 
Martyr,  and  the  renowned  Calvin,  37tK 
381. 

-,  The  Anglo-English,  cardinal  prin- 


ent  results  of,  in  the  Continental  and  An 
glican  Reformations,  376,  381,  382-392. 

Protestantism    and    Romanism  irreconcil- 
able, 19. 

Protestants,  Advantage  of,  over  the  Roman- , 

ists,  on  the  question  of  an  authentic  copy  Rome,  the  Church  of,  without  either  an  an 


ciples  of,  essentially  ditferent  from  those 
of  the  Continental  Reformation,  382 ; 
obviously  antichristian,  382-388  ;  Ra 
pacity  of,  under  Henry  VI IL,  388,  389, 
390,391;  under  Edward  VI.,  393-395; 
sthismatical — proof  of,  383.  384;  a  nhw 
CHURCH,  391,392;  principles  on  which 
it  was  established  under  Edward  VI., 
Antichristian  character  of,  393-397  ; 
Popish  character  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  (See  on  English  Book  of  C.  Pr..) 
yet  claimed  to  have  been  compiled  by 
''aid  of  the  Holy  Gkost,'^  396-398:  en- 
forced by  the  most  cruel  penal  Acts  of 
Parliament,  both  on  Romanists  and  Dis- 
senters, 398-400  ;  fulsome  adidat  ons  of, 
400;  conduct  of  the  Anglo-English  Re- 
formers under  Mary:  the  New  Church, 
•with  the  Book  of  C.  I'r  ,  though  affirmed 
to  be  compiled  "  by  aid  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,"  renounced  !  their  cupidity,  etc., 
400,401;  Romanism  restored — Cranmer, 
401-403;  conduct  of  the  Anglo-English 
Reformers  under  Elizabeth — a  Roman- 
ist, 403 ;  her  first  intentions,  404 ;  why 
relinquished,  ib. ;  turns  Protestant,  ib. ; 
how  accomplished,  ib.  ;  revived  Penal 
Acts  of  Parliament,  with  additions — "  Act 
of  Conformity" — cruelty  ol— now  some- 
what modified,  404-406. 

Retort  courteous,  between  High  and  Low- 
Churchmen,  202. 

Rock,  its  symbolical  import,  117;   exposi- 
tion of,  118. 


Cincinnati,  O., 


of  the  Bible,  80 
Pseudo-Protestant  Evangelism,  30  ;  policy 

of,  xxix. 
Purcell,  R.   C,  Bishop  o: 

300,  337. 
Purgatory,  223. 
Puritans,  or  Catharl,  465. 


Q 


thentic  copy  of  or  commentary  on,  the 
Bible,  80,  81,  83. 
Romanism,  definitions  of,  18;  analogy  be- 
tween it  and  Judaism,  19,  201  ;  irrecon- 
cilable with  I'rotestantism,  19;  concede 
the  right  of  private  interpretation,  75, 
76,  77. 
Romish  perverts,  236. 

Priesthood,  (See  on  Priesthood.) 

Rudolph,  222. 

iKule  of  Faith,  what  is?  55. 
Quod  ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  ab  omni-i  Ruling  Elders  (,See  on  Elders.) 
bus  creditum  est,  61,  70. 


518 


Sacramental  Ceremonialism,  alias  grace,  18, 
2-33. 

Saracia,  28. 

Schism  of  the  Anglican  Church  against  the 
See  of  Rome,  under  Henry  VIII.,  etc., 
•Mr). 

Schism,  An  attempt  to  escape  from,  b}'  pre- 
latists,  33-5.  (See  on  Succession,  The  An- 
glican.) 

Schism  and  Heresy,  Responsibility  of  those 
who  promote,  x.xx.  Error  in  regard  to, 
xxxi.  What  constitutes,  xxx-xxxv. 
Jerome,  Prelatists,  and  the  Author  on, 
x.Kxiv-xxxvi.  Laudean  High-Church- 
ism  the  boundary-line  of  modern,  xlii. 
Presbyterians  not  yuilty  of,  xlii,  xliii. 

Scriptures,  The,  infallible,  so  the  Rule  of 
interpretation,  not  the  interpreter,  74; 
Sufficiency  of — Attributes  of,  87  ;  They 
clearly  reveal  a  complete  system  of 
Church  order.  87. 

Seabury,  Bishop,  208. 

Self-deitication,  Tendency  to,  in  all  orders 
of  created  intelligences,  173;  Its  design 
the  dethronement  of  Christ,  as  head  of 
the  Church,  171,  175. 

Seminal,  Alleged,  descent  of  the  apostolical 
office,  184,  188. 

Severus,  Emperor,  341. 

Sicily,  King  of,  222. 

Silas,  or  Silvanus,  not  an  apostle,  128. 

Simon  Magus,  147,  182. 

Snodgrass,  Rev.  Dr.,  1,'54,  199. 

'•  Society,  Evangelical  Knowledge,  of  P.  E. 
Church."  Their  denial  of  the  Unchurch- 
ing dogma,  25. 

Sovereign  Pontiff,  199. 

Stand-points,  tour.  Reasons  for  the  writer's 
secession  from  the  P.  E.  Church,  180. 

Standard  of  Appeal,  an  authentic,  indispen- 
sable, 15. 

St.  Ambrose,  410,  412,  416. 

StillingHeet.  Archbishop,  280.  339,  340. 

Stone,'Rev.'Dr.,  24,  34,  270,  273,  274. 

Sub-Traditionists,  65. 

Substitute,  Christ  is  such,  to  the  true  be- 
liever, 91. 

Substitute,  or  discretionary  form,  in  the 
Liturgical  OrJinal  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church,  219. 

Succession,  Apostolical,  alleged  unbroken, 
Romish,  Tractarian,  and  High  and  Low- 
Church,  179.  The  above  theories  sub- 
stantially identical,  ib. ;  Is  a  question  of 
fact,  ib.  ;  four  stand- points,  in  proof  of. 
ib. ;  fallacy  of,  180  ;  Protean  character  of,  I 
ib.  ;  conditions  indispensable  in  proof  of 
— first,  must  be  derived  from  Christ  him-j 
self,  181  ;  second,  must  possess  the  povveri 
to  confer  the  Holy  Ghost,  182;  third,! 
must    be    continued    for   the    same   end' 


delegated  to  others  the  power  to  propa- 
gate said  office,  though  divested  of  its  ex- 
traordinary functions,  184. 

The  System  defined,  184  ;  examined, 

first,  by  "  Holy  Scrh'turk.''  1st,  "  Lo.  I 
am  with  you  alway ;"  2d,  '"As  my  Fa- 
ther hath  sent  me,"  etc.;  3d, '' No  man 
taketh  this  honor,"  etc.  Bisliop  McCos- 
krey  on,  85,  86  ;  fallacy  of,  86,  200-202. 
The    RojiisH,    not  invalidated  by 


moral  delinquency,  221  ;  exclusiveness 
of,  227. 

Conditions  of  its  perpetuity.     (See 

on  Ordination.)  Examination  of,  as  an 
alleged  fact — the  various  theories  of, 
compared :  first,  Roman,  246  ;  second, 
Tractarian,  ib. ;  third,  High-Church,  ib.  ; 
fourth.  Low  Church,  247-249  ;  validity 
of,  made  to  depend  on  three  Consecrators, 
etc.,  249,  250  :  absurdity  of,  2-50. 

Fallacy  of,  as  argued  from  the  ab- 


sence of  all  analogy  between  the  alleged 
type  and  antitype  ;  first,  by  a  comparison 
of  their  respective  modes  of  transmission. 
251 ;  second,  the  twelve  apostles  not  conse- 
crated by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  251, 
252  ;  third,  involves  the  question  of  ge- 
nealogy, 253-261  ;  the  term  defined  and 
applied,  first,  to  Christ,  ib. ;  second,  to  the 
Jews,  ib. ;  third,  to  the  Aaronic  priest- 
hood, 254  ;  necessarily  accurate  and  com- 
plete, ib. ;  specimens  of,  255  ;  prelatical 
claims  in  support  of  a  genealogical  suc- 
cession being  equally  great,  must  be 
equally  clear,  256. 

Absence  of  all  analogy  between  the 


with  the    original  twelve,   183;    fallacyj 
of,   ib.  ;   fourth,   must  prove   that   Christ 


Aaronic  and  Christian  Orders  as  to,  first, 
their  vocations,  256  ;  second,  limits,  2.58; 
third,  is  absurd,  259;  fourth,  if  twelve 
foundation-stones,  must  be  twelve  lines, 
ib. ;  fifth,  fallacy  of,  260 ;  sixth,  the 
'•Register"  for  each  line  must  be  clear 
and  perfect. 

Prelatical,  considered  as  an  alleged 

fact,  262 ;  the  term,  as  understood  by 
Prelatists,  ib.  ;  fallacy  of,  ib. ;  the  subject 
illustrated,  263  ;  Dr.  Duffield  on,  ib.  , 
Anti- Prelatists  not  opposed  to  succession 
in  the  true  sense,  263  ;  Archbishop 
Whately  and  Dr.  Addison  Alexander  on, 
(note.)  263-265  ;  proof  that  their  succes- 
sion i.?,  at  least,  equally  valid  with  that 
of  Prelatists.  ib.  ;  high  claims  of  Pre- 
latists, 256,  '26-5,  266;  solemn  duty  in- 
volved, 266  ;  their  qualifications  there- 
for, 267  ;  -difficulties  to  encounter,  ib. :  al- 
leged consecration  by  three  bishops,  has 
no  analogy  in  nature,  268. 

The  Prelatical  claim  put  to  the  test 

of  ''  Holv  Scripture."  Examination  of 
thd  first  links— "the  twelve,"  269  ;  Pre- 
latical dilemma,  ib. ;  preface  to  Book  of 
Common  Prayer,  Dr.  Stone  and  Bishops 
McCoskrey  and  Mcllvaine  on,  ib.  ;  Mat- 
thias, the  first  alleged   link  from   "  the 


519 


twelve,"  271  ;  fallacy  of,  '272  ;  Barnabas, 
the  second^  273;  fallacy  of,  ib. ;  others — 
Dr.  Stone,  Bishops  JNIcllvaine  and  Mc- 
Coskrey;  273,  271;  Timotlv,  the  third  i 
link,  274-279;  Titus,  the  fourth  link,| 
279  ;  fallacy  of,  ib.  j 

involves    the     establishnnent,    by! 

Christ,  of  a  chair  of  Primacy  and  Su- 
premacy in  the  Christian  Church,  281- 
302  ;  fallacy  of,  in  Eleven  ary;uments,  ib. ; 
first,  n6  evidence  for,  in  Scripture,  2S-5, 
286  ;  second,  three  other  apostles — James, 
Paul,  and  John,  superior  claims  of  Pri- 
macy over  Peter,  28C-2SS  ;  third, 
proof  from  the  nature  of  Traditional 
Evidence,  288,  2S9  ;  fourth,  Peter  never 
at  Rome,  239-292;  filth,  no  evidence  | 
from  Rome's  claim  as  to  the  preservation  | 
of  the  Scriptures.  292,  293  ;  sixth,  Romish 
schisms,  293-295;  seventh,  mode  ofj 
electing'  Popes,  295,  296;  eij;hth,  corrup-; 
tion  of  the 'Popes,  297-300;  Jiinth, 
Romish  concessions  of  breaks  in  the| 
chain,  300,301;  tenth,  involves  an  ab- 
surdity, 301  ;  eleventh,  demonstrated 
from  a  view  of  the  alleged  records  of 
early  antiquity— Eusebins,  301  ;  his  tes- 
timony defective,  303  ;  tradition,  as  ap- 
plied to  Peter  and  his  successor,  30 1,  305  ; 
eight  specimens  of,  30-3,  306 ;  the  Romish 
successions  in  tabular  views— five  lines 
of,  306-320  ;  defects  of,  321-323  ;  Cha- 
pin  on,  ib. 

The  Anglican,  not  invalidated  by 

moral    delinquency,    218,    219;     Henry 
VIII    the  fountain   of,  to  the  Anglican 
and  x\merican   branches,  231-234 ;  ot  it- 
self sufficient  to  Romanize  both  branches 
of,  238  ;  attempt  to  evade   its  derivation 
from   Rome,  270  ;    Rev.  A.   B.  Chapin  ; 
review  of,  on  "  The  Organization  of  the 
Primitive    Church,"    332  ;    proposes    to 
'•give  the  Anglican  Succe.ssion  in  several 
different  ways,"  ib. ;  his  authorities,  333; 
defective,   333,  334;  his  mode  of  deter- 
mining said  succession,  334  ;  alleges  it  to 
be  derived,  not  from  iJomc,  through  Peter, 
but  from  Ephksus,  by  St.  John,  through 
Augustine,    335;    design  of— to   escape 
the  charge  of  schism  against  Rome,  and 
the    derivation    of   its    succession    from 
Rome.  ib. ;  difficulties,  first,  with   Prot. 
I  relatists,  ib. :  some  of  whom  deiive  it 
from    Paul— Bishop   McCoskrey,    339; 
falla-y  of— Stillingtleet,   Rev.   H.  Carey, 
Churton.  .338,  339  ;  second,  with  himsell : 
denies  the  Romish  character  of  Augustine, 
334  •     and    yet    rejects    Cardinal     Pole, 
thou"h  of  the  same  line,  because  a  Ro- 
manist, 338,  344,  345;  fallacy  of— proof 
of  the  Romanism  of  Augustine,  3-)3,  3-)  I  ; 
Thirty-six  Romish  links  in  the  .\nglicau 
chain,  between  Augustine  and  Ciannier, 
3;57_3r,o  .  ]Mr.  C,  to  save  his  succession, 
seeks  it  first  through   Ephcsus  from    St. 


John  and  Augustine,  335  ;  second,  through 
Ireland  and  Scotland,  from  St.  Columb 
an<i  the  Culdees,  317— thir<l,  through  Je- 
rusalem, from  St.  James.  3ii5 — and  finally, 
through  ROME,  from  St.  Peter!  362; 
fallacy  of,  under  each  section  ;  the  An- 
glican succes.<ion  not  derived  from  the 
old  British  bishops,  344-347  ;  the  •'■  Cul- 
dees," Aidan,  Columb,  etc.,  3 17-349  ;  the 
alleged  success-ion  Irom  Jerusalem, 
through  the  Archbishoprics  of  Meneva 
and  Llandaff.  down  to  the  Retbrmation  ; 
fallacy  of,  365-36S ;  thence,  through 
Matt.  Parker,  365 ;  fallacious,  365-368  ; 
three  conclusions,  369. 

.  The  American.    Derived  from  Hen- 


ry VIII.,  232;  obstacle.  233:  How  re- 
moved, 233.  234  407;  their  high  claims 
to  a  valid,  unbroken  succession,  suspend- 
ed on  four  conditions,  407,  408. 

Sutclift'e,  28. 

Synagogue  (See  on  Polity,  etc.) 


Tabular  views  of  the  alleged  Apostolical 
Successions,  eight  specimens  of  the  first 
five  links,  30-5.  306. 

The  Romish  succession  in  five  lines, 

30G-3  .'0. 

Prelatical    style  of  mndim  succes 


sions,   322  ;    wanting   in    tlie   first   links, 
323. 

f'ates  of  deaths  of  the  Apostles,  33S. 

Demonstration  of  the  Romanism  of 


the  Anglican  succession,  355,  356.  359- 
362. 

■  The   Succession    from    Cranmer  to 


Moore,  the  coiiseciator  of  William 
White,  the  first  American  bishop,  etc., 
365. 

■  of  Greek  and  Ronmn  Bisnops,  437. 


'•  Teachers."   (See  on  Piopliet.s.  etc.  ■ 

"  The  Twelve,"  called  by  Christ  to  be  his 
personal  companions,  109. 

Theodoret.  327,  410. 

••Thirteen  Apo>iles,"  no  authority  in  the 
New  Te.*tament  lor,  133-137. 

Timothy,  designated  to  his  office  by  pro- 
phecy. 151 ;  circumcised,  119,151;  but 
not  ordained  by  Paul,  145.  146.  1 19.  150; 
nor  coiLsecrated  by  a  college  of  bishops  in 
the  prelatical  sense,  274-276:  his  of- 
ficial functions  and  those  of  Ephesian 
Presbytery  lut  identiial,  151  ;  never 
called  an  Apostle,  129;  his  functions  and 
those  of  Titus,  show  them  to  have  been 
itinerating  evangelists,  152-154  ;  their 
office,  as  such,  not  perp^'tual.  154. 

Timothy  and  Titus.    The  ministerial  ordcm 

t    he  appointed  by  them,  ].')S-16.S. 
Title.s,  Elders,   Presbyters,  and    1  riests,  not 

identical.  275,  276. 
Titus  not  an  Apostle,  129  ;  but  an  Evange- 
list. 15-2. 


520 


Tractafors,  '229. 

Tkadition,  written  and  unwritten,  6fi.  If 
authoritative,  must  be  ituhpendcnt  ot 
Scripture,  .OS,  59  ;  must  be  supported  by 
miracle,  .VJ ;  the  Romish,  Traclarian, 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  High  and 
Low-Church  theories  of,  essentially  iden- 
tical, () 5-70,  2-i:i,  225 ;  the  basis  of,  57- 
59;  alleged  apostolical,  what'  o2 ;  al- 
leged Catholic  or  Ecclesiastical,  what? 
65;  alleged  infallibility  of,  08,09;  Scrip- 
ture and  Tradition,  the  alleged  joint  rule 
of  faith,  65;  passages  quoted  in  support 
of,  examined.  02,  63,  74,  76,  79  ;  involves 
the  hypothesis  of  development,  69;  im- 
plicit faith  in,  demanded,  69 ;  dangerous 
consequences  of,  87  ;  oral  tradition,  un- 
certainty of.  80. 

The  Rule  of  Vincent  of  Lirens  ex 

amined — "  Quod  ttbi(/uc,  quod  semper. 
</iiod  ab  omnibus  creditum  cst,'^  advocated 
alike  by  Romanists,  Tractariaiis,  and  by 
High  and  Low- Church,  71 ;  proofs  of  its 
fallacy — first,  It  is  inapplicable;  second, 
unsatisfactory  ;  third,  superfluous,  71  ; 
lourth,  is  Judaistic,  was  denounced  by 
Christ,  and  opposed  by  the  declared  suf- 
ficiency of  Scripture,  72  ;  fifth,  such  au- 
tliority  in  behalf  of  their  writings  dis- 
claimed by  the  early  fathers — Polycarp, 
Irenoeus,  Origen,  Justin  Mart\'r,  Augus- 
tine, 73. 

The  later,  uncertainty  of,  288,  289  ; 

tiefective,  303 ;  confusion  of,  304 ;  fails 
at  the  very  point  where  certainty  is  in- 
dispensable, 322.  323 ;  Mr.  Chapin's 
Gallia  Christiana,  333  :  a  blunder,  333, 
334:  Stillingfleet,  Carey.  Mr.  Churton, 
on  the  early  British  Church,  338,339. 

Traditionisis  not  agreed  as  to  an  infallible 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  74. 

versus   Private   interpretation,    80  ; 

the  early  fathers — t  olycarp,  Irenaeus, 
Origen,  Justin  Martyr,  and  Augustine, 
against  tradition  as  co-ordinate  with 
Scripture,  73,  74. 


Tridentine  Decree,  on  the  imanimous  con- 

SHui  of  the  fathers  as  to  the  rule  of  faith. 

75. 
Turner,  Mr.-^on  Romanism  at  the  time  of 

Augustine,  353. 
Tyndal,  on  popular  election,  103. 
Tyng,  Rev.  Dr.,  xxxvi,  xlii,  xbii.  227,  237, 

247,  249. 

U 

Union  with  Rome,  proposed,  of  the  P.  E. 

Church,  237;   Rev.  Dr.  Jarvis  on,  237, 

238. 
Unity.  Prelatical  pretense  to,  fallacious,  20. 
Unlimited  theory  of  Episcopal  infant  lap- 

tism,  a  potent  engine  of  proselytism,  42. 
Unprotestantizing  influences  in  the  Church. 

49,  201. 
Usurpation  of  the  Apostleship,  how  known, 

182. 
Usurpers,  who  are  such,  in  the  prelatical 

sense,  97,  173,  208,  209.  263,  267. 


"  Veritas   est    maxima  carilas.'''      Tiuth  is 


the  greatest  charity. 

Vincentius  Lirinensis. 

tionary  maxim,  61. 


Our  motto,  175. 
His  famous  tradi- 


W 


Waldenses,  The,  377  ;  prevalence  of  378; 
persecutions  of,  377.  378;  some  in  En- 
gland, 378 ;  and  Albigenses,  406.  (See 
also  Appendix  D.) 

Waterland,  Dr.,  on  the  extraordinary  gifts 
of  the  early  post-apostolic  Church.  09. 

Wesley.  Rev.  John,  230. 

Wicklltie.  378,  421. 

Whitefield,  230. 

White,  Bishop,  208. 

Whitgift,  Archbishop,  28. 

Works,  Covenant  of,  174. 


I 


